Case C-200/03: Action brought on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2003-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European standard, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, food inspection, foodstuff

C 158/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
Antwerp, by judgment of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the
case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or,
Anzor, 4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili,
Badri, 7. Janssens,
Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean
System Transport BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf
Louis, 10. United Logisitic Partners BVBA, 11. Decock,
Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris, Johannes Marie-Louise, and
13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette Leonie Julienne

4.

(Case C-195/03)

(2003/C 158/23)

Customs Code or must the view be taken that in respect
of those goods no customs debt has yet arisen?

If the answer to the first question is negative must goods
which, even if not intentionally, were declared under an
incorrect designation/commercial designation be regard-
ed as having been introduced unlawfully into the customs
territory of the Community (in other words imported in
breach of the provisions of Articles 38 to 41 inclusive
and of the second indent of Article 177 of the Community
Customs Code) as a result of which the customs debt in
respect of those goods arises under Article 202 of the
Community Customs Code and the person making the
summary declaration or the declaration for a customs
procedure, even if with an incorrect designation/commer-
cial designation, may be deemed to be the customs debtor
only if he may be regarded as a debtor within the meaning
of Article 202(3) of the Community Customs Code?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep,
Antwerp, (Criminal Court of Appeal) of 7 May 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 12 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or, Anzor,
4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili, Badri,
7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean System Transport
BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf Louis, 10. United Logisitic
Partners BVBA, 11. Decock, Frank Jozef Hilda, 12.
Joris,
Johannes Marie-Louise, and 13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette
Leonie Julienne on the following questions:

1. Must goods in respect of which a summary declaration
was submitted with an incorrect designation/commercial
designation (‘cookware’ instead of cigarettes), or goods
which were declared under an incorrect designation/
commercial designation for the purposes of a customs
procedure (such as the procedure for external Community
customs transit), be regarded as being lawfully introduced
into the customs territory of
the Community and,
accordingly, as being under customs supervision (tempor-
ary storage or customs procedure), notwithstanding the
fact that, even if not intentionally, the goods bore an
incorrect designation/commercial designation?

2.

3.

that

If the answer to the first question is affirmative must the
view be taken,
in the case of removal from customs
supervision of goods which, even if not intentionally,
were declared under an incorrect designation/commercial
designation,
arises under
Article 203 of the Community Customs Code and must
the person liable to comply with the obligations arising
out of temporary storage of the goods or from use of the
customs procedure under which the goods (even if under
an incorrect designation) were placed, also be regarded as
a debtor in respect of the customs debt?

customs debt

the

If the answer to the first question is affirmative, on
establishment by the customs authorities that the goods
under customs supervision were declared, even if not
intentionally, under an incorrect designation/commercial
designation, whilst the goods had not (by then) been
removed from customs supervision and the customs
authorities still had access to the goods, must the customs
debt in respect of the goods which were declared under
an incorrect designation/commercial designation be
regarded as arising under Article 204 of the Community

Action brought on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-200/03)

(2003/C 158/24)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the
subject of additional measures concerning the official
control of foodstuffs (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
1 November 1998.

(1) OJ L 290 of 24.11.1993, p. 14.