Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:308
Date: 2009-05-14
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Approximation of laws;Transport;Customs Union
Concepts: Community transit
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 1. Free movement of goods – Community transit – Transport operations carried out under cover of a TIR carnet (Commission Regulation No 1593/91, Art. 2(1)) 2. Free movement of goods – Community transit – Transport operations carried out under cover of a TIR carnet (Commission Regulation No 1593/91, Art. 2(2) and (3)) 1. Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1593/91 providing for the implementation of Regulation No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets must be interpreted as meaning that failure to comply with the period within which the holder of a TIR carnet is to be notified of its non-discharge does not have the consequence that the competent customs authorities forfeit the right to recover the duties and taxes due in respect of the international transport of goods made under cover of that carnet. (see para. 52, operative part 1) 2. Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1593/91 providing for the implementation of Regulation No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention on the International Transport of Goods under cover of TIR carnets, must be interpreted as determining only the period within which proof is to be furnished of the regularity of the transport operation, and not the period within which proof must be provided as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed. It is for the national court to determine, according to the principles of national law on evidence, whether, in the specific case before it and in the light of all the circumstances, that proof was furnished within the period prescribed. However, the national court must determine that period in compliance with Community law and, in particular, must take account of the fact, first, that the period must not be so long as to make it legally and materially impossible to recover the amounts due in another Member State, and, second, that that period must not make it materially impossible for the TIR carnet holder to furnish that proof. (see para. 72, operative part 2)