Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2318
Date: 2014-10-23
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 23 October 2014 EU law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Recovery of import duties — Proof of the origin of imported goods resting on the results of examinations carried out by a third party which refuses to disclose further information — Non-verification of the conclusions by the customs authorities — Lawfulness — Assessment by the national court — Conditions (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding proof of origin of imported goods adduced by the customs authorities on the basis of national procedural rules resting on the results of an examination carried out by a third party, with regard to which that third party refuses to disclose further information either to the customs authorities or to the customs declarant, as a result of which it is made difficult or impossible to verify or disprove the correctness of the conclusions reached, provided that the principles of effectiveness and equivalence are upheld. Since the relevance of evidence not entirely verifiable by all the parties to the proceedings or by the court hearing the case can validly be challenged by the party concerned, in particular by arguing that that evidence can constitute only indirect proof of the facts alleged and by putting forward other evidence to support his assertions, the right of that person to effective judicial protection, referred to in Article 47 of the Charter, has not, in principle, been infringed. Since Article 245 of the Customs Code provides, in that context, that the provisions for the implementation of the appeals procedure provided for in Article 243 of that code are to be determined by the Member States, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing those actions, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render in practice impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness). In order to ensure compliance with the principle of effectiveness, if the national court finds that the fact of requiring the person liable for the customs debt to prove the place of origin of the goods declared, in that the onus is on him to refute the relevance of indirect evidence used by the customs authorities, is likely to make it impossible or excessively difficult for such evidence to be produced, since inter alia that evidence relates to data which the person liable could not possess, it is required to use all procedures available to it under national law, including that of ordering the necessary measures of inquiry. Nevertheless, where the national court, after having used all procedures available to it under national law, concludes that the true origin of the goods concerned is different from that declared and that the imposition on the declarant of additional customs duties, or even a fine, is therefore justified, Article 47 of the Charter does not preclude a decision to that effect being adopted by that court. When the customs authorities cannot disclose further information in respect of the examination carried out, whether the customs authorities must grant the request of the party concerned that it conduct, at its own expense, an examination in the country declared as the country of origin and whether it matters that portions of the samples of the goods, to which the party concerned could have obtained access with a view to having an examination carried out by another laboratory, were still available for a limited period and, if so, whether the customs authorities must inform the party concerned that portions of the samples of the goods are still available and that it may request those samples for purposes of such an examination must be assessed on the basis of national procedural law. (see paras 26-30, 35, operative part 1, 2)