Case C-460/01: Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, Union transit, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, customs debt, customs regulations, simplification of formalities

C 84/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
has expired without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31-50.
(2) OJ L 024, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Com-
the
mission of

the European Communities against
Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-460/01)

(2002/C 84/73)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H.M.H. Speyart and G. Wilms,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by having, between 1 January 1991 and

31 December 1995:

— failed, where the declarant in an external Com-
munity transit procedure has not, within three
months from notification by the customs office
of departure that the consignment has not been
the customs office of destination,
presented at
furnished proof of
the regularity of the transit
operation concerned — at the latest on the third day
following the expiry of that time-limit, to take steps
to enter in the accounts and recover the customs
debt and other charges involved, or by having done
so later than provided for by Regulation (EEC,
Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June
1971 determining the rules applicable to periods,
dates and time limits (OJ, English Special Edition
1971 (II), p. 354);

— failed promptly to make available to the Com-
mission the own resources relating thereto; and

— refused to pay the default interest connected there-

with,

the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the second sentence of the second
subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for
the implementation of the Community transit procedure

and for certain simplifications of that procedure (1), the
third sentence of Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for
the implementation of the Community transit procedure
and for certain simplifications of that procedure (2) and
the third sentence of Article 379(2) of 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 Com-
munity Customs Code (3) and under Articles 2 and 9 to
11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89
of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC,
the Communities’ own
Euratom on the system of
resources (4);

(2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of

Code,

Customs

hereinafter

the second sentence of

the second
subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1062/87,
the third sentence of Article 49(2) of Regulation
No 1214/92 and the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
Regulation No 2454/93 (the regulation implementing the
‘the
Community
implementing regulation’): Article 96 of Regulation
No 2913/92 (5) (the Community Customs Code, herein-
after ‘the CCC’) and Articles 356 and 379 of
the
implementing regulation lay down mandatory time-limits
for the acts to be performed by the declarant and the
offices of departures and destination in the context of an
external Community transit procedure,
in particular
where a consignment covered by that transit procedure
is not presented in good time to the office of destination.
The Netherlands and the Commission are in disagreement
concerning the correct application of the period of three
months which starts to run on the day of notification
of non-discharge (Article 379(2) of the implementing
regulation and analogous previous provisions). That time-
limit is primarily binding on the declarant, since he is
required within that period to furnish proof of the
regularity of the transit operation concerned. However,
that time-limit is also binding on the Member State in
which the customs office of departure is located, inas-
much as it follows from the penultimate sentence of
Article 317(2) of the implementing regulation that where,
following the expiry of that time-limit, proof has not
been furnished by the declarant,
the Member State
concerned is required to take prompt steps to recover the
customs debt in question. On the first day of the fourth
month after notification of non-discharge, the office of
departure has available to it all the particulars necessary
in order to calculate the customs debt
in question
(Article 217(1) and the opening wording and subpara-
graph (a) of 218(3) of the CCC) and to identify the debtor
concerned — in this case, the declarant (opening wording
and subparagraph (b) of 218(3) of the CCC). Under
Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC, the debt must then be
entered in the accounts within two days or, in certain
circumstances, within 14 days. Consequently, subject to
to
the
possible
time-limit pursuant
Article 219 of
the Member State has no
discretion enabling it to decide at what point in time it

extension of

the CCC,

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/43

should proceed to enter the customs debt in question in
the accounts. By virtue of Article 221(1) of the CCC, the
Member State is required to take immediate steps,
following the entry in the accounts, to recover the debt
by communicating the amount thereof to the debtor. The
Netherlands is incorrect in its view that it may take as
much time as it wishes to carry out a careful assessment,
‘having regard to the quantity and complexity of the
evidence produced in a given case’. The argument
advanced by the Netherlands can only be regarded as
seeking the application of Article 219 of
the CCC.
However, Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC are provisions
the
designed to safeguard the financial
Community, for which customs receipts constitute a
form of own resources, and which thus has an interest in
the rapid determination of those receipts. Consequently,
it is not open to the Member States to invoke, at will,
extensions under Article 219 of the CCC as against the
Commission. On the contrary, the Member States must
always show why the reasons invoked by them render it
necessary to extend the time-limit
for entry in the
accounts.

interests of

— Infringement of Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation

No 1552/89.

— Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89:
the infringements complained of in the last two pleas are
necessary consequences of the infringement described in
the first plea. During the period in question, the Nether-
In
lands failed to make the principal sum available.
addition, it has hitherto constantly refused to pay the
corresponding default interest. Since the end of 1996
the Commission has been requesting the Netherlands
authorities to pay to it the sum of NLG 5 323 395,06 by
way of default interest.

(1) OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
(4) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
(5) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(1) Does Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome permit a Member
State to prohibit cultivation or other processing of
‘industrial hemp’ allowed under EC regulations?

(2)

If that is not the case, can an exception nevertheless be
made under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome with the
result that such a prohibition does not conflict with EC
law?

(3)

If that is not the case, can the Swedish prohibition be
accepted on some other ground?

Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-465/01)

(2002/C 84/75)

An action against
the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 December 2001 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Jörn Sack, Legal Adviser in the
Commission of the European Communities, with an address
for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Lux-
embourg.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Halmstads
Tingsrätt (Sweden) by order of that court of 8 November
2001 in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten

(Case C-462/01)

(2002/C 84/74)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Halmstads Tingsrätt
(District Court, Halmstad) of 8 November 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 3 December 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten
on the following questions:

(a)

by excluding workers from other EC/EEA Member
to stand for election to
States from the right
chambers of workers, the Republic of Austria has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 8 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of
movement for workers within the Community and
under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European
Economic Area;