Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:332
Date: 1997-06-26
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgmen t 
1. Free movement of goods — Community transit — Community status of goods — Means of 
proof — Confined to documents T2 and T2 L alone — Whether compatible with Articles 9 
and 10 of the Treaty 
(EC Treaty, Arts 9 and 10; Council ReguUtion No 222/77; Commission Reguktion 
No 223/77) 
2. Free movement of goods — Community transit — Community status of goods — Means of 
proof — Findings of the competent authorities of a Member State made during inspections 
carried out under the Community transit procedure — Not permissible 
(Council Reguktion No 222/77, Art. 37(2)) 
I -5103 
SUMMARY — CASE C-237/96 
1. The mie laid down in Regulation 
N o 222/77 on Community transit and 
Regulation N o 223/77 on provisions for 
the implementation of the Community 
transit procedure and for certain simplifi­
cations of that procedure to the effect 
that, save as otherwise provided, proof of 
the Community status of goods may be 
provided only by means of transit docu­
ments T2 or T2 L is consistent with 
Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty. 
In the first place, Articles 9 and 10 are 
silent as to the means of proof and the 
burden of proof of the Community status 
of goods and leave it to secondary Com­
munity legislation to settle those matters, 
while, second, the provision of a standard 
and simple means of proof, combined 
with the possibility of producing such 
proof even after the frontier has been 
crossed, is justified by the need to facili­
tate the movement of goods within the 
Community, which is one of the basic 
principles of the common market. 
2. Article 37(2) of Regulation N o 222/77 
does not allow proof of the Community 
status of goods to be provided by means 
of the findings of the competent authori­
ties of a Member State made when 
inspections are carried out under the 
Community transit procedure. 
That provision cannot constitute a dero­
gation from the rule that, save as other­
wise provided, proof of the Community 
status of goods may be provided only by 
means of transit documents T2 or T2 L. 
Admission of the findings referred to in 
Article 37(2) as proof would lead to réin­
troduction of the simultaneous applica­
tion of national administrative procedures 
which the rules governing Community 
transit are designed precisely to avoid. 
I -5104