EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2016 — A v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-522/16)

(2017/C 086/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

1. Should Article 62 of the CCC [Community Customs Code], (1) read in conjunction with Articles 205, 212, 216, 217 and 218 of the Regulation implementing the CCC (2) as well as the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1484/95, (4) be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of the CCC, on the basis of which a customs declaration is drawn up, should include the documents referred to in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 which must be submitted to the customs authorities?

2. Should the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that the persons who should be held liable must include the natural person who has not personally actually performed the act described in that paragraph (‘provided the information required to draw up the declaration’) and who can also not be held liable in an official capacity for performing that act, but who was closely and consciously involved in devising and then setting up a structure of companies and patterns of trade in the context of which (others) subsequently ‘provided the information required to draw up the declaration’?

3. Should the condition ‘who knew, or who ought reasonably to have known that the information required to draw up the declaration was false’ in the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that legal persons and natural persons, who are experienced traders, cannot be held liable for additional duties which are due as a result of an abuse of law, if they only proceeded to set up a transaction structure intended to avoid the payment of additional duties after reputable specialists in the field of customs law had confirmed that such a structure was legally and fiscally acceptable?

4. Should Article 221(4) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that the three-year period will not be extended in a situation where it is established, after the expiry of the period referred to in the first sentence of Article 221(3) of the CCC, that import duties which became due under Article 201 of the CCC as a result of a customs declaration for release for free circulation of goods, were not levied earlier as a result of the submission of false or incomplete information in the declaration?

5. Should Article 221(3) and Article 221(4) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that, once a communication about duties due has been made to a customs debtor in relation to an import declaration, against which that customs debtor has lodged an appeal within the meaning of Article 243 of the CCC, the customs authorities can, in respect of the same customs declaration, in a supplementary action to the legal challenge to that communication, make an additional assessment with regard to import duties legally due, while ignoring the provisions of Article 221(4) of the CCC?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

(3) Regulation of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77).

(4) Commission Regulation of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing additional import duties in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47).