Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-251/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa ): Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda v Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third party: Ministério Público (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Importation of television sets from Turkey — Determination of the person liable for the customs debt — Post-clearance recovery of customs duties)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, Türkiye, customs debt, interpretation of the law, movement certificate

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/13

2. Where a company formed in accordance with the law of a
Member State (‘A’) in which it has its registered office exercises
its freedom of establishment in another Member State (‘B’),
Articles 43 EC and 48 EC require Member State B to recognise
the legal capacity and, consequently, the capacity to be a party
to legal proceedings which the company enjoys under the law of
its State of incorporation (’A’).

1. Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of
24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties
or export duties which have not been required of the person
liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
involving the obligation to pay such duties must be interpreted
as meaning that:

( 1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

in Case C-251/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa ):
Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda v Chefe da
Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção
das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third party: Ministério Púb-
lico (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Importation of
television sets from Turkey — Determination of the person
liable for the customs debt — Post-clearance recovery of
customs duties)

(2002/C 323/14)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

— in order to determine whether there is an ’error made by
the competent authorities themselves’, account must be
taken both of the conduct of the customs authorities
which issued the certificate permitting the application of
preferential treatment and of that of the central customs
authorities;

— the routine issuing by the authorities of the exporting
country of certificates permitting the application of prefer-
ential treatment under association rules constitutes evi-
dence of such an error when those authorities must have
been aware, on the one hand, of the existence in the
exporting country of a policy of encouraging exports,
involving the duty-free importation of components orig-
inating in third countries for incorporation in goods
intended for export to the Community and, on the other
hand, of the absence in the exporting country of provisions
enabling collection of the compensatory levy to which the
application of preferential treatment to exports to the
Community of goods thus obtained was subject;

— the fact that some of the relevant provisions of the
association rules were not published in the Official Journal
the European Communities and the circumstance
of
that those provisions were not
implemented, or were
implemented incorrectly, in the exporting country over a
period of more than 20 years constitute evidence that such
an error could not reasonably have been detected by the
person liable.

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

2.

The conduct of the authorities of the exporting country does not
affect the determination of the person by whom the customs
debt is payable or the right of the authorities of the importing
country to take action for post-clearance recovery thereof.

In Case C-251/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa
(Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e
Electrónica Lda and Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos
Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third
party: Ministério Público, on the interpretation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and on
the validity of a Commission decision,
(Fifth
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
er, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it has ruled:

the Court

3. Articles 22 and 25 of the Agreement establishing an associ-
ation between the European Economic Community and Turkey
do not require the national customs authorities of a Member
State, acting on the Commission’s advice, to have recourse to
the procedure provided for by those articles before taking action
for post-clearance recovery of import duties.

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.