Case C-407/05: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  6 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Reyniers & Sogama BVBA v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Recovery of import rights — Proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence or irregularity — Consequence of the lack of notification to the principal of the period for furnishing such proof)
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs document, customs formalities, interpretation of the law

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/15

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 April 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Reyniers & Sogama
en Restitutiebureau,
BVBA v Belgisch Interventie-

Operative part of the order

Belgische Staat

(Case C-407/05) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — First subparagraph of
Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Recovery of
import rights — Proof of the regularity of the operation or
of the place of the offence or irregularity — Consequence of
the lack of notification to the principal of the period for
furnishing such proof)

(2006/C 178/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

National court

Article 36(2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of 13
December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 474/90 of 22 February 1990, with a view to
abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on crossing an internal
frontier of the Community, read in conjunction with Article 11a of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on
provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure
and for certain simplifications of
that procedure, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, and
Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 of 17
September 1990 on Community transit, read in conjunction with
Article 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21
April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community
transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure,
must be interpreted as meaning that the office of departure must
notify to the declarer the period of three months in which proof of the
regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or
the irregularity was actually committed may be furnished to that
office, to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, so that the
competent authority can proceed with recovery only after having
expressly indicated to the declarer that the latter has three months in
which to furnish that proof, and that that proof has not been furn-
ished within that period.

Hof van Cassatie van België

(1) OJ C 22 of 28.1.2006.

Parties

Applicant: Reyniers & Sogama BVBA

Defendant: Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Belgische
Staat

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden lodged on 26 April 2006 — Staatssecre-
taris van Financiën v Orange European Smallcap Fund NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van
België — Interpretation of Art. 11a of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the
implementation of the Community transit procedure and for
certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1),
inserted by Art. 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
1429/90 of 29 May 1990, amending Regulation (EEC) No
1062/87 (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 1), Art. 34 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2726/90 of 17 September 1990 on Community
transit (OJ 1990 L 262, p. 1) and Art. 49 of Commission Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for
the implementation of the Community transit procedure and
for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1992 L 132, p.
1) — Recovery of import rights — Notification addressed, by
the office of departure, to the principal inviting him to furnish
the proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of
the offence — Failure to notify time-limit — Consequences in
terms of the validity of the notification and the recovery of the
customs debt

(Case C-194/06)

(2006/C 178/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden