Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-199/01 P: IPK-München GmbH against Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Commission decision refusing to pay the balance of financial aid)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), Germany, appeal, infringement of EU law, private limited company, tourism

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,