Case C-140/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen, of 11 March2004 in proceedings between N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies andthe Kingdom of Belgium and between N.V. Seaport Terminals and (1) the Kingdomof Belgium and (2) N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, customs debt, customs regulations, interpretation of the law

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/41

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The treatment of the information communicated by Italy with
regard to the Regions and certain of them appears to infringe
stated in the reasoned opinion. To date,
the obligations
however, the Commission has not received information on the
methods used for the preliminary assessment of air quality
under Article 5 of Directive 96/62/EC in respect of
the
covered by Directive 1999/30/EC from the
substances
following regions: Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania,
Emilia Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Molise, Puglia,
Sardegna, Sicilia, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Umbria and
Veneto. Furthermore, the questionnaires in respect of 2001 on
the substances covered by Directive 99/30/EC, as laid down by
Article 11(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and Article 11(1)(b) of Directive
1996/62/EC appear to be missing in respect of the following
Regions: Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Friuli Venezia
Giulia, Molise, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia, Provincia Autonoma di
Bolzano and Umbria.

(1) OJ L 163 of 29.06.1999, p. 41.
(2) OJ L 319 of 04.12.2001, p. 45.
(3) OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 55.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Antwerpen, of 11 March 2004 in proceedings
between N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies and the
Kingdom of Belgium and between N.V. Seaport Terminals
and (1) the Kingdom of Belgium and (2) N.V. United
Antwerp Maritime Agencies

(Case C-140/04)

(2004/C 106/71)

The Hof van Beroep Antwerp te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal,
Antwerp), on the basis of its decision of 11 March 2004,
received at the Court’s Registry on 16 March 2004,
in the
proceedings pending before that court between N.V. United
Antwerp Maritime Agencies and the Kingdom of Belgium and
between N.V. Seaport Terminals and (1)
the Kingdom of
Belgium and (2) N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies,
refers to the Court of Justice for the European Communities for
a preliminary ruling the following questions:

1. May the person who must present the goods to customs
(Article 40 of the Community Customs Code in Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p.1)) be deemed to be the person required to fulfil the obli-
gations arising from temporary storage of the goods (final
indent of Article 203(3) of the Community Customs Code),
in which connection he or his representative must lodge the
summary declaration (Article 44(2) thereof) and must sign it

(Article 183(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 Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1)), and must make the goods available to the customs
authorities for as long as they have not been released from
the means of transport in which they are located when the
goods are brought into the Community and until such time
as those goods have received a custom designation?

2. May the person required to fulfil the obligations arising
from temporary storage of the goods (final indent of Article
203(3) of the Community Customs Code) be deemed to be
the person who, after release of the goods, has them in his
possession in order to move them or store them, in conse-
quence of which, under Article 51(2) and 53(2) of the Com-
munity Customs Code, he is deemed to be the holder of the
goods and is consequently required, under Article 184(2) of
the implementing provisions, to re-present the goods at the
request of the customs authorities?

3. If the first and second questions are answered affirmatively,
may the persons referred to in those questions consequently
be deemed to be joint and several customs debtors, it being
understood that the persons mentioned in the first and
second questions are different persons (in this case the
representative of the shipping line by which the goods were
brought
forwarder
into the Community and the freight
responsible for the storage and removal of the goods at the
unloading place or quayside indicated by the customs autho-
rities?

4. If

the third question is answered affirmatively does the
person mentioned in the first question remain the debtor
until the goods are given a customs designation, regardless
of the fact that after release of the goods from the means of
transport by which they entered the Community they were
stored with or removed by the person mentioned in the
second question?

5. If the third question is answered in the negative must the
person mentioned in the first question be regarded as
remaining a customs debtor until the goods are received by
the person mentioned in the second question and does the
person mentioned in the second question become a debtor
only from the time when he arranges the storage and
removal of the goods?

6. If the first question is answered affirmatively and the second
question negatively must the person mentioned in the first
question continue to be regarded as the debtor until the
time when the goods are received by the person mentioned
in the second question or until the time when the goods
have been given a customs designation?