Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-222/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): British American Tobacco Manufacturing BV v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Free movement of goods — External Community transit — Temporary removal of transit and transport documents — Breaking of seals and partial unloading of goods — Removal of goods from customs supervision — Incurring of a customs debt on importation — Unsuspected presence of undercover customs agents — Special circumstances justifying remission or repayment of import duties — Liability of the principal in the case of deception or obvious negligence on the part of persons engaged by him)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, transport document

C 118/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-199/01 P: IPK-München GmbH against Commis-
sion of the European Communities (1)

(Appeals — Commission decision refusing to pay the balance
of financial aid)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-222/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): British American Tobacco Manufac-
turing BV v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (1)

(Free movement of goods — External Community transit —
Temporary removal of transit and transport documents —
Breaking of seals and partial unloading of goods — Removal
of goods from customs supervision — Incurring of a customs
debt on importation — Unsuspected presence of undercover
customs agents — Special circumstances justifying remission
or repayment of import duties — Liability of the principal in
the case of deception or obvious negligence on the part of
persons engaged by him)

(2004/C 118/17)

(2004/C 118/18)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-:199/01 P IPK-München GmbH, established in
Munich (Germany) (Avocat: H.-J. Prieß) against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents:
J. Grunwald) — two
appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2001
in Case T-331/94 IPK-München v Commission [2001] ECR II-
779, seeking the partial annulment of that judgment — the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris acting for the
J.-
President of the Sixth Chamber,
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,

1. Dismisses the appeals.

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 28.7.2001.
OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.

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

In Case C-222/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between British American Tobacco Manufacturing BV
and Hauptzollamt Krefeld — on the interpretation of the Com-
munity rules concerning the incurring, remission and repay-
(Fifth Chamber),
ment of a customs debt — the Court
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29
April 2004, in which it has ruled:

1) In so far as the temporary removal of the T 1 transit document
from the goods to which it relates prevents the presentation of that
document at any possible requisition by the customs service, such a
removal constitutes a removal of those goods from customs super-
vision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2144/87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt even if the
customs authorities have not demanded presentation of that docu-
ment or established that it could not have been presented to them
without considerable delay.

2) The fact that infringements of the Community transit system origi-
nate in the conduct of an undercover agent belonging to the
customs services constitutes a special situation within the meaning
of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2
July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export
duties, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3069/86 of
justify the
7 October 1986, which may,
remission or repayment of duties paid by the principal, on condi-
tion that no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to
him.

in appropriate cases,

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/11

3) Deception or obvious negligence on the part of persons whom the
principal has engaged to carry out obligations contracted under
the Community external transit system does not, in itself, exclude
repayment to the principal of duties incurred as a result of the
removal of goods placed under that system from customs supervi-
sion, on condition that no deception or obvious negligence is attri-
butable to the principal.

obligations under the first sentence of Article 2(2) of Council
Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation
of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by
Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, inasmuch as
it has not made all mineral oils intended for use as heating fuel
subject to excise duties;

(1) OJ C 245, 1.9.2001.

2) Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 1.9.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-240/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Excise
duties on mineral oils — Directive 92/81/EEC — Mineral
oils used as heating fuel)

(2004/C 118/19)

(Language of the case: German)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-308/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): GIL Insurance Ltd
and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Tax on insurance premiums —
Higher rate applicable to certain insurance contracts —
Insurance connected with the rental or sale of domestic appli-
ances — State aid)

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

(2004/C 118/20)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-240/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and K. Gross), with an address for service
in Luxembourg, v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D.
Plessing and M. Lumma) — application for a declaration that,
by applying Paragraph 4(1)(2)(b) of the Mineralölsteuergesetz
(Law on the taxation of mineral oils) of 21 December 1992
(BGBl. I, p. 2185, corrigendum in 1993 I, p. 169), the Federal
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 2(2) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October
1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties
on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council
Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p.
46), in so far as that Member State has not made all mineral
oils intended for use as heating fuel subject to excise duties —
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rappor-
teur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29
April 2004, in which it:

1) Declares that, by applying Paragraph 4(1)(2)(b) of the Mineralöl-
steuergesetz (Law on the taxation of mineral oils) of 21 December
1992, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its

In Case C-308/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between GIL Insurance Ltd, UK Consumer Electronics
Ltd, Consumer Electronics Insurance Co. Ltd, Direct Vision
Rentals Ltd, Homecare Insurance Ltd, Pinnacle Insurance plc
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the interpre-
tation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Arti-
cles 87 EC and 88 EC — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: C.W.A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A.
Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29
April 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. A tax on insurance premiums such as that at issue in the main
proceedings is compatible with Article 33 of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.