Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:529
Date: 2017-07-19
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 19 July 2017 1. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Conditions — Existence of a special situation – No circumstances implying deception or obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned — Cumulative nature (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) 2. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Conditions — Existence of a special situation — Concept – Inadequate monitoring by the Commission of the proper implementation of the EEC-Latvia Association Agreement — Whether included (Art. 17(1) TEU; Protocol No 3 to the EEC-Latvia Association Agreement, Art. 32(3); Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) 3. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Conditions — Existence of a special situation — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) 4. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Conditions – No circumstances implying deception or obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) 5. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Conditions – No circumstances implying deception or obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned — Concept of obvious negligence — Restrictive interpretation — Criteria (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) 6. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court — Not permissible (Art. 296 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 39-41) 2. Inadequate monitoring by the Commission of the proper implementation of an association agreement may constitute a special situation implying neither deception nor obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned within the meaning of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code. Whilst the Commission has a discretion in applying that provision, it cannot disregard its duty to balance, on the one hand, the Union interest in full compliance with the provisions of customs legislation, whether that be EU legislation or other legislation binding on the Union, and, on the other hand, the interest of an importer acting in good faith not to suffer harm which goes beyond the normal commercial risk. Consequently, when examining an application for repayment or remission of import duty, the Commission is not entitled merely to assess the behaviour and activities of the importer and the exporter. It must also take into account, in particular, the effect of its own behaviour on the specific situation in the course of its duty to supervise and monitor. Moreover, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty and of the agreements concluded under it, must ensure the correct implementation by a third country of the obligations it has assumed under an agreement concluded with the Union, using the means provided for by the agreement or by the decisions take pursuant thereto. That obligation is also apparent from the Association Agreement concluded between the European Communities and the Republic of Latvia and from the protocols to that agreement. In that regard, it is for the Commission to make full use of the rights and powers which it has under the provisions of the Association Agreement and the decisions and protocols adopted in respect of its implementation so as to fulfil its obligation of supervising and monitoring the correct implementation of the Association Agreement. Such use is all the more imperative where there are indications of the possible involvement of national customs authorities in issuing certificates for the circulation of goods attesting to their provenance. In such circumstances, it is for the Commission to request clarification concerning the investigations carried out by the national customs authorities concerned in order to shed lights on the facts of the case. Moreover, the Commission’s obligation to ensure that the Association Agreement is correctly implemented means that the Commission, and through it the customs authorities of the Member States, should always have all the information to enable it to carry out an effective check, and specimen stamp imprints and signatures unquestionably constitute such information. In that regard, it is clear from Article 32 of Protocol 3 to the Association Agreement, as amended by Decision No 4/98 of the Association Council between the European Communities and the Republic of Latvia, that the customs authorities of the exporting country have the right to call for any evidence and to carry out any inspection of the exporter’s accounts or any other check considered appropriate. Consequently, in the absence of information in that regard from the customs authorities concerned, the Commission must, especially if it is unable to examine stamp imprints and signatures, ask the said customs authorities whether such inspections have been carried out and, if not, why not. It follows that the Commission fails to fulfil its obligations to supervise and monitor the correct implementation of the Association Agreement where, if it had made full use of its rights and powers under that agreement for the purposes of the correct implementation thereof, it could have been established with greater certainty whether the certificates for the circulation of the goods at issue were genuine or forged. (see paras 43-45, 67, 68, 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 83, 85) 3. In order to ascertain whether failures by the authorities of third countries and the Commission to fulfil obligations are apt to constitute special situations within the meaning of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92, it is necessary to examine in each particular case the true nature of the obligations imposed on those authorities and the Commission, respectively, by the applicable legislation. (see para. 48) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 100) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 102) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 110)