Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:599
Date: 1999-12-09
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Free movement of goods — Community transit — Transportation effected under a TIR 
carnet — Offences and irregularities — Place where an offence or irregularity was 
committed — Type of evidence — Application of national law 
(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 454(3), first subpara., and Art. 455(3)) 
I-1797 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-310/98 AND C-406/98 
2. Free movement of goods — Community transit — Transportation effected under a TIR 
carnet — Offences and irregularities — Member State competent to recover taxes and 
other duties — Member State where offence or irregularity was committed — 
Recovery by the Member State where the offence was detected where that Member 
State wrongly considered the evidence submitted to establish where the offence was 
committed not to be sufficient — Application of the compensation mechanism 
(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 454(2) and (3), third and fourth subparas) 
3. Free movement of goods — Community transit — Transportation effected under a TIR 
carnet — Offences and irregularities — Place where the offence or irregularity was 
committed — Submission of evidence — Time-limit 
(Council Regulation No 2112/78; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 454(3), 
first subpara., and Art. 455(1)) 
1. The first subparagraph of Arti­
cle 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 
laying down provisions for the imple­
mentation of Regulation 2913/92 
establishing the Community Customs 
Code, which applies where interna­
tional transportation of goods is 
effected under a TIR carnet, must be 
interpreted as meaning that proof of 
the place where an offence or irregu­
larity under customs provisions was 
committed, which is required by the 
customs authorities of the Member 
State where that offence or irregularity 
was detected, does not have to be 
adduced solely by means of documen­
tary evidence showing that the compe­
tent authorities of another Member 
State have established that the offence 
or irregularity was committed in that 
State. 
Given that there is no legislation at 
Community level governing the con­
cept of proof, any type of evidence 
admissible under the procedural law of 
the Member States in similar proceed­
ings is in principle admissible. The 
wording of Article 455(3) of Regula­
tion No 2454/93, in the version of that 
provision resulting from Regulation 
No 12/97, cannot lead to a different 
conclusion. Article 455(3) relates to a 
different matter, namely proof of the 
offence or irregularity as such. It can­
not be assumed that because, as from 
1997, the Community legislature lim­
ited the types of admissible evidence 
for establishing the regularity of transit 
operations, it intended, by implication, 
to do the same in relation to the 
question of establishing where an 
offence or irregularity was committed. 
(see paras 29, 31, 33, operative part 1) 
2. The third and fourth subparagraphs 
of Article 454(3) of Regulation 
I - 1798 
MET-TRANS AND SAGPOL 
No 2454/93 laying down provision for 
the implementation of Council Regula­
tion 2913/92 establishing the Commu­
nity Customs Code, which applies 
where international transportation of 
goods is effected under a TIR carnet, 
must be interpreted as meaning that the 
compensation mechanism provided for 
in that regulation also applies where 
the duties and other charges were 
levied by the Member State where the 
offence under the customs provisions 
was detected even though satisfactory 
proof had been furnished that the place 
where the offence was actually com­
mitted was located in another Member 
State. 
If the compensation mechanism comes 
into operation where a Member State 
has recovered duties even though, 
under the rule of principle in Arti­
cle 454(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, 
it did not have competence to do so 
because the place where the offence 
was committed, determined later, is not 
located in that State, it must also come 
into operation in the situation, which is 
essentially no different, where the 
Member State which recovered the 
duties did not have competence under 
the same rule of principle but wrongly 
took the view initially that the evidence 
adduced to establish where the offence 
was committed was insufficient. 
(see para 39-40, operative part 2) 
3. The first subparagraph of Arti­
cle 454(3) and Article 455(1) of Reg­
ulation No 2454/93 laying down pro­
visions for the implementation of 
Council Regulation 2913/92 establish­
ing the Community Customs Code, 
which apply where international trans­
portation of goods is effected under a 
TIR carnet, must be interpreted as 
meaning that the customs authorities 
of the Member State where the offence 
or irregularity under the customs pro­
visions was detected cannot impose on 
a TIR carnet holder a time-limit of 
three months for furnishing satisfac­
tory proof of the place where the 
offence or irregularity was actually 
committed. 
The first subparagraph of Arti­
cle 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 
unambiguously refers, as regards the 
length of the period in question, to 
Article 455(1) of that regulation. Arti­
cle 455(1) in turn refers, as regards the 
time-limit it lays down, to Article 11(1) 
of the Convention on the international 
transport of goods under cover of TIR 
carnets. Since the time-limit laid down 
in Article 11(1) of that Convention is 
one year, the time-limit laid down in 
the first subparagraph of Arti­
cle 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 
for furnishing proof of the place where 
the offence or irregularity was commit­
ted is also one year. 
(see paras 44, 49, operative part 3) 
I -1799