Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Community transit — Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities — Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, customs debt, interpretation of the law, offence

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

(Fourth Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

in Case C-296/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
Conseil d'État): Glaxosmithkline SA v État Belge (1)

(Directive 89/105/EEC — Medicinal products for human use
— Application for entry on a positive list — Nature of the
time-limit for responding — Mandatory nature — Conse-
quences of exceeding the time-limit where a decision refusing
entry is annulled)

(2005/C 57/16)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-296/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'État (Belgium) by decision of
27 June 2003, received at the Court on 8 July 2003, in the
proceedings Glaxosmithkline SA v État Belge – the Court:
(Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of
the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur),
C. Gulmann, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advo-
cate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005,
the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1)
of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating
to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal
products for human use and their
inclusion in the scope of
national health insurance systems is a mandatory time-limit which
the national authorities are not entitled to exceed.

2. It is for the Member States to determine whether the fact that the
time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of
Directive 89/105 is exceeded precludes the competent authorities
from formally adopting a new decision when the previous decision
has been annulled in court proceedings, although such a possibility
can be exercised only within a reasonable time which may not in
any event exceed the time-limit laid down in that article.

in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace
GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (1)

(Community transit — Incurrence of a customs debt in the
event of offences or irregularities — Consequence of the lack
of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing
proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)

(2005/C 57/17)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-300/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel
(Germany), made by decision of 25 April 2003, received at the
Court on 11 July 2003, in the proceedings between Honey-
well Aerospace GmbH and Hauptzollamt Gießen – the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
the Chamber,
and
K. Schiemann,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20
January 2005, in which it has ruled:

(Rapporteur)

Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12
October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code in conjunc-
tion with Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93
of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that a
customs debt has been incurred where a consignment placed under the
external Community transit procedure has not been presented at the
customs office of destination, but that the Member State to which the
office of departure belongs may take steps to recover the debt only if it
has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which to
furnish the proof requested and such proof has not been provided
within that period.

(1) OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

(1) OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.