Case C-78/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January 2001 in the case of Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik (BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière Tiard, Société anonyme d'assurances de droit français, v Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt Friedrichshafen
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs duties, customs regulations, customs territory (EU), infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, transport document

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/15

Question 3

Is the financial activity of a company whose annual revenue is
far higher than that produced by the activity which is its
principal object, according to its statutes, to be regarded as
‘incidental’ for the purposes of Article 19(2) of the Sixth
Directive?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof by order of that court of 11 January 2001 in the
case of Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik
(BGL) e.V.,
intervener: Préservatrice Foncière Tiard,
Société anonyme d’assurances de droit français, v Federal
Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt Frie-
drichshafen

(Case C-78/01)

(2001/C 118/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 11 January 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bundesverband Güterkraftver-
kehr und Logistik (BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière
Tiard, Société anonyme d’assurances de droit
français, v
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt
Friedrichshafen on the following questions:

1.(a) Does the time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph
of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1), implementing Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (2), for fur-
nishing proof of the actual place of an irregularity apply
also where a Member State, pursuant to Article 454(2)
and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 454(3)
of Regulation No 2454/93, brings proceedings against
the guaranteeing association for the payment of duties,
and the association wishes to prove in those proceedings
that the place where the irregularity was actually commit-
ted is situated in another Member State?

(aa)

In such a case does the one-year time-limit in the first
subparagraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of
Regulation No 2454/93 in conjunction with the
first sentence of Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention
or the two-year time-limit in Article 455(2) of that
regulation in conjunction with the first sentence of
Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention apply?

(bb) Does the time-limit for furnishing proof in the case
set out in Question 1(a) apply in such a way that the
guaranteeing association must submit its allegation
under tender of evidence that the irregularity was
actually committed in another Member State within
the time-limit and, if that is not done, is precluded
from offering that proof?

2.(a) Under Articles 454 and 455 of Regulation No 2454/93,
is the Member State which finds that an irregularity has
been committed in connection with a transport operation
under cover of a TIR carnet obliged as against the
guaranteeing association, in addition to the notifications
under Article 455(1) of that regulation and an enquiry to
the customs office of destination, to investigate where the
irregularity was actually committed and who is the
customs debtor within the meaning of Article 203(3) of
Regulation No 2913/92, by requesting another Member
State for administrative assistance in ascertaining the facts
(see Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 of 19 May
1981 (3))?

(b)

If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,

(aa)

If such an investigative obligation is infringed, is the
irregularity not deemed under the first subparagraph
of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to have
been committed in the Member State in which it
was detected?

(bb) Must the Member State which has detected the
irregularity, when claiming against the guaranteeing
association, demonstrate and prove that such an
investigative obligation has been complied with?

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 144, 2.6.1981, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 17 February 2001 by Aéroports de
Paris against the judgment delivered on 12 December
2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-128/98 between
Aéroports de Paris and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Alpha Flight Services

(Case C-82/01 P)

(2001/C 118/25)

(b)

If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance