Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:94
Date: 2014-02-25
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 3 July 2014 1. EU law — Principles — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Obligation of national administrations to respect those principles in a procedure for the recovery of customs duties — Whether the non-respect of those principles may be relied on before national courts (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000) 2. Customs union — Application of customs legislation — Right to bring an action — Interpretation in the light of fundamental rights (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000) 3. European Union’s own resources — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Rights of the defence — National legislation not allowing the prior hearing of the addressee of a demand for payment — Lawfulness — Conditions — Right of the addressee to obtain suspension of the implementation of the demand (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Art. 244, second subpara.) 4. EU law — Principles — Rights of the defence — Infringement of those rights by an administrative decision — Consequences — Adoption of measures of national law — Conditions — Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Art. 245) 1. The principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities and the resulting right of every person to be heard before the adoption of any decision liable adversely to affect his interests, as they apply in the context of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, may be relied on directly by individuals before national courts. The authorities of the Member States are subject to the obligation to observe that principle when they take decisions which come within the scope of EU law, even though the EU legislation applicable does not expressly provide for such a procedural requirement. (see paras 31, 35, operative part 1) 2. Provisions of EU law, such as those of the Customs Code, must be interpreted in the light of the fundamental rights which, according to settled case-law, form an integral part of the general principles of law whose observance the Court ensures. (see para. 69) 3. The principle of respect for the rights of the defence and, in particular, the right of every person to be heard before the adoption of an adverse individual measure must be interpreted as meaning that, where the addressee of a demand for payment adopted in a procedure for the post-clearance recovery of customs duties on imports, under Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, he has not been heard by the authorities before the adoption of the decision, his rights of defence are infringed even though he can express his views during a subsequent administrative objection stage, if national legislation does not allow the addressees of such demands, in the absence of a prior hearing, to obtain suspension of their implementation until their possible amendment. Such is the case, in any event, if the national administrative procedure implementing the second paragraph of Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92 restricts the grant of such suspension where there is good reason to believe that the disputed decision is inconsistent with customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned. (see para. 73, operative part 2) 4. The conditions under which observance of the rights of the defence is to be ensured and the consequences of the infringement of those rights are governed by national law, provided that the rules adopted to that effect are the same as those to which individuals in comparable situations under national law are subject (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights of defence conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness). The national court, which is under an obligation to ensure that EU law is fully effective, may, when assessing the consequences of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, consider that such an infringement entails the annulment of the decision taken at the end of the administrative procedure at issue only if, had it not been for such an irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different. That conclusion is applicable to customs matters in so far as Article 245 of the Customs Code expressly refers to national law. (see paras 76, 82, operative part 3)