Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2001:10
Date: 2001-01-11
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
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: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation sought 
owing to the applicability of a provision of Community law to an internal situation as a 
result of a reference made by national law — Jurisdiction to provide such an 
interpretation 
(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC)) 
I - 207 
SUMMARY — CASE C-1/99 
2. Customs union — Application of the customs rules — Right of action — Appeal 
procedure against decisions of the customs authorities — Whether an appeal to the 
judicial authority must be preceded by an appeal to the customs authority — 
Application of national law 
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 243) 
3. Customs union — Application of the customs rules — Right of action — Suspension 
of implementation — Authorities competent to suspend implementation 
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 243 and 244) 
1. Neither the wording of Article 177 of 
the Treaty (now Article 234 EC) nor 
the aim of the procedure established by 
that article indicates that the framers of 
the Treaty intended to exclude from the 
jurisdiction of the Court requests for a 
preliminary ruling on a Community 
provision where the domestic law of a 
Member State refers to that Commu­
nity provision in order to determine the 
rules applicable to a situation which is 
purely internal to that State. 
Where, in regulating internal situa­
tions, domestic legislation adopts the 
same solutions as those adopted in 
Community law so as to provide for 
one single procedure in comparable 
situations, it is clearly in the Commu­
nity interest that, in order to forestall 
future differences of interpretation, 
provisions or concepts taken from 
Community law should be interpreted 
uniformly, irrespective of the circum­
stances in which they are to apply. 
(see paras 21, 32) 
2. Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 
establishing the Community Customs 
Code is to be interpreted as meaning 
that it is for national law to determine 
whether a trader must initially lodge an 
appeal against a decision of the cus­
toms authorities before the customs 
authority or whether he may appeal 
directly to the judicial authority. 
Article 243 forms part of Title VIII of 
the Customs Code, on appeals. Unlike 
a considerable number of the substan­
tive provisions of the Customs Code, 
the provisions in that title concern only 
a number of essential aspects relating 
I - 2 0 8 
KOFISA ITALIA 
to the protection of the traders con­
cerned, but do not lay down detailed 
rules governing the appeals procedure. 
Therefore, in adopting only the broad 
outlines of the appeals procedure, the 
Community legislature did not pre­
clude that national law might authorise 
a trader, in appropriate circumstances, 
to lodge an appeal directly before an 
independent authority. Nor is there 
anything in the Community legislation 
to support the conclusion that it 
authorises a trader to bypass an appeal 
before the customs authority and 
appeal directly to the independent 
body, where under the applicable 
national law an appeal to the customs 
authority is mandatory. 
(see paras 37-39, 42-43, 
and operative part 1) 
3. Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92 
establishing the Community Customs 
Code is to be interpreted as meaning 
that it confers the power to suspend 
implementation of a contested decision 
exclusively on the customs authorities. 
However, that provision does not limit 
the power of the judicial authorities 
seised of a dispute pursuant to Arti­
cle 243 of that Code to order such 
suspension in order to comply with 
their obligation to ensure the full 
effectiveness of Community law. 
(see para. 49, and operative 
part 2) 
I -209