EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-386/08) (1)

(EC-Israel Association Agreement - Territorial scope - EC-PLO Association Agreement - Refusal to apply to products originating in the West Bank the preferential tariff arrangements granted for products originating in Israel - Doubts as to the origin of the products - Approved exporter - Subsequent verification of invoice declarations by the customs authorities of the importing State - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - Principle of the relative effect of treaties)

2010/C 100/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brita GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 20 November 1995 (OJ 2000 L 147, p. 3) and in particular Articles 32 and 33 of Protocol 4 of that agreement, and of the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 24 February 1997 (OJ 1997 L 187, p. 3) — Refusal to apply the preferential tariff regime granted to goods originating in Israel to goods originating in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank — Power of the authorities of the importing State to verify subsequently the proof-of-origin certificates in the absence of doubts concerning the origin of the goods in question other than those resulting from a divergence of opinion between the parties to the EEC-Israel Association Agreement as to the interpretation of the expression ‘territory of the State of Israel’ and in the absence of previous resort, for the purposes of the interpretation of that expression, to the dispute-settlement procedure provided for under Article 33 of Protocol 4 of that agreement

Operative part of the judgment

1. The customs authorities of the importing Member State may refuse to grant the preferential treatment provided for under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 20 November 1995, where the goods concerned originate in the West Bank. Furthermore, the customs authorities of the importing Member State may not make an elective determination, leaving open the questions of which of the agreements to be taken into account — namely, the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, and the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 24 February 1997 — applies in the circumstances of the case and of whether proof of origin falls to be issued by the Israeli authorities or by the Palestinian authorities.

2. For the purposes of the procedure laid down in Article 32 of Protocol No 4 appended to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, the customs authorities of the importing State are not bound by the proof of origin submitted or by the reply given by the customs authorities of the exporting State where that reply does not contain sufficient information, for the purposes of Article 32(6) of that protocol, to enable the real origin of the products to be determined. Furthermore, the customs authorities of the importing State are not obliged to refer to the Customs Cooperation Committee set up under Article 39 of that protocol a dispute concerning the territorial scope of that agreement.

(1) OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.