Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-112/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret): SPKR 4 nr. 3482 ApS v Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen, Aktieselskabet af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition ved Søren Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS) (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External Community transit — Offence or irregularity — Recovery of a customs debt — Conditions)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs debt, customs regulations, exchange of information, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/21

2. Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768 as amended by Directive 93/
35 precludes national legislation which authorises the use of
information as referred to in Question 1 only on condition that
prior authorisation is granted by the competent Minister.

( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

in Case C-112/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): SPKR 4 nr. 3482 ApS v
Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen, Aktieselskab-
et af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition ved Søren
Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS) (1)

(Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External
Community transit — Offence or irregularity — Recovery
of a customs debt — Conditions)

(2002/C 323/27)

Customs Code, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code, should be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt
arising by reason of an offence or irregularity committed in connection
with a consignment placed under the external Community transit
procedure can be recovered from the principal by the office of departure
even if it did not notify the principal before the end of the 11th
month following the date of registration of the Community transit
declaration that the consignment had not been presented at the office
of destination and that the place of the offence or irregularity could
not be established. The same applies if the office of departure did not
follow an administrative procedure for the transmission of infor-
mation, such as the early warning system, or if the failure to comply
with the time-limit was due to error or negligence on the part of that
office.

(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 7 November 2002

(Language of the case: Danish)

in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (1)

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

(Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation
— Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regu-
lations)

In Case C-112/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SPKR 4
nr. 3482 ApS and Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen,
Aktieselskabet af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition
ved Søren Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS), 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 Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:

Article 379(1) 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 Community

(2002/C 323/28)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-184/01 P, Peter Hirschfeldt (Agents: J.-N. Louis and
V. Peere): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
13 February 2001 in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v EEA [2001]
ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-157, seeking to have that judgment set
aside and the claims at first instance allowed, the other party
to the proceedings being: European Environment Agency,
represented by J.-L. Salazar and J. Rivière, acting as Agents,
assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: