Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1999:517
Date: 1999-10-21
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Community transit
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Free movement of goods — Community transit — Offences or irregularities — 
Recovery of import duty — Competent Member State 
(Council Regulation No 222/77, Art. 36(3); Commission Regulation No 1062/87, 
Art. lla(2)) 
I - 7349 
SUMMARY — CASE C-233/98 
2. Free movement of goods — Community transit — Offences or irregularities — 
Recovery of import duty — Lack of competence of the Member State in which the 
office of departure is located — Obligation to refund 
(Council Regulation No 222/77, Art. 36(3), third subpara.; Commission Regulation 
No 1062/87, Art. lla(2), second subpara.) 
1. Article 36(3) of Regulation No 222/77 
on Community transit — as amended 
by Regulation No 474/90 with a view 
to abolishing lodgement of the transit 
advice note on crossing an internal 
frontier of the Community, in conjunc­
tion with Article lla(2) of Regulation 
No 1062/87 on provisions for the 
implementation of the Community 
transit procedure and for certain sim­
plifications of that procedure, as amen­
ded by Regulation No 1429/90 — is to 
be interpreted as meaning that the 
Member State to which the office of 
departure belongs may recover import 
duty only if it has indicated to the 
principal that he has three months in 
which to prove where the offence or 
irregularity was actually committed 
and such proof has not been provided 
within that period. 
2. The third subparagraph of Arti­
cle 36(3) of Regulation No 222/77 as 
amended by Regulation No 474/90 is 
to be interpreted as not applying to a 
case in which the Member State to 
which the office of departure belongs 
has recovered duty in respect of goods 
cleared for the Community transit 
procedure even though the principal 
has not been set a time-limit for 
furnishing proof of the place where 
the offence or irregularity was actually 
committed, in accordance with Arti­
cle lla(2) of Regulation No 1062/87 
as a m e n d e d by R e g u l a t i o n 
No 1429/90, and in such a case the 
refund of the duty irregularly recovered 
is not subject to the condition that the 
duty due from the principal have been 
paid in the Member State where the 
offence was committed. 
I - 7350