Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1997:372
Date: 1997-07-17
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice;Import or export procedures
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment
1. Preliminary rulings —Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation sought owing to
the applicability ofprovisions of Community law to an internal situation as a result of a refer­
ence made by national law — Jurisdiction to provide such an interpretation
(EC Treaty, Art. 177)
I - 4291
SUMMARY — CASE C-130/95
2. Customs union — Application of the customs rules — Right of action — Suspension of imple­
mentation — Conditions — Good reason to believe that a customs decision is inconsistent
with customs legislation or risk of irreparable damage f or the person concerned — Alternative
conditions — 'Irreparable damage' — Guidance provided by Article 185 of the Treaty for
interpretation of that term
(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 244, second para.)
3. Customs union — Application of the customs rules — Right of action — Suspension of imple­
mentation — Suspension subject to provision of security — Condition — Risk of irreparable
damage for the person concerned in the event of immediate implementation of the decision in
question — Not relevant — Power of customs authorities not to require security — Condition
— Risk of serious economic or social difficulties for the debtor — Whether permissible
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 244, second and third paras)
4. Customs union — Application of the customs rules — Right of action — Suspension of imple­
mentation — Provision of security — Setting of the amount of security — Whether the debt­
or's financial situation may be taken into consideration — Conditions
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 192 and Art. 244, third para.)
1. The Court has jurisdiction to give pre­
liminary rulings on provisions of Com­
munity law in situations in which the
facts of the case fall outside the scope of
Community law where, in regulating
internal situations, domestic legislation
has adopted the same solutions as those
adopted in Community law so as to pro­
vide for one single procedure in compa­
rable situations. It is clearly in the Com­
munity interest that, in order to forestall
future differences of interpretation, provi­
sions or concepts taken from Community
law should be interpreted uniformly, irre­
spective of the circumstances in which
they are to apply.
2. On a proper construction of the second
paragraph of Article 244 of Council
Regulation 2913/92 establishing the
Community Customs Code, the customs
authorities should suspend implementa­
tion of a disputed customs decision in
whole or in part where one only of the
two conditions mentioned in that provi­
sion is fulfilled, so that suspension must
be granted where there is a risk of irrepa­
rable damage to the person concerned. It
is not necessary that there be reason to
believe that the disputed decision is
inconsistent with customs legislation.
As regards interpretation of the term
'irreparable damage', guidance is provided
by the interpretation of that term as a
condition for the grant of an order sus­
pending operation of an act under Article
185 of the Treaty.
I - 4292
GILOY v HAUPTZOLLAMT FRANKFURT AM MAIN-OST
3. The fact that irreparable damage may be
suffered by the person concerned in the
event of immediate implementation of a
disputed customs decision does not pre­
vent the customs authorities from making
suspension of its implementation condi­
tional upon the lodging of security.
Although under the second paragraph of
Article 244 of the Community Customs
Code the condition relating to the risk of
irreparable damage is a ground justifying
suspension of implementation of a dis­
puted decision, that condition is not rel­
evant as regards the necessity of provid­
ing security.
However, if the requirement to lodge
security is likely, owing to the debtor's
circumstances, to cause serious economic
or social difficulties, the customs authori­
ties are free to decide not to require such
security to be lodged. This would be the
case if the debtor did not have sufficient
means to provide such security.
4. Where suspension of implementation of a
disputed customs decision is subject,
under the third paragraph of Article 244
of the Community Customs Code, to the
lodging of security, the amount of that
security must be set at the precise amount
of the debt or, if this cannot be estab­
lished with certainty, at the maximum
amount of the debt which has been, or
may be, incurred, unless the requirement
to provide security is likely to cause the
debtor serious economic or social diffi­
culties; if that is the case, the amount of
security may be set, taking into account
the debtor's financial situation, at an
amount less than the total amount of the
debt concerned.
I - 4293