do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-138/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — DP grup EOOD v Direktor na Agentsia Mitnitsi (Customs union — Customs declaration — Acceptance by the customs authorities of that declaration — Invalidation of a customs declaration which has already been accepted — Consequences for penal measures)
Date: 2011-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs document, customs formalities, customs inspection








C_2011319EN.01000701.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — ‘DP grup’ EOOD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’
(Case C-138/10) (1)

(Customs union - Customs declaration - Acceptance by the customs authorities of that declaration - Invalidation of a customs declaration which has already been accepted - Consequences for penal measures)
2011/C 319/10
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘DP grup’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Articles 4(5), 8(1), first indent, 62, 63 and 68 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Acceptance by the customs authority of a customs declaration made in writing by the person liable to pay duty — Treatment of such acceptance as equivalent to an administrative decision open to judicial review — Acceptance of the declaration on a provisional basis pending definitive verification of the information provided therein by means of an expert report for the purpose of confirming the tariff code — Delimitation of the review conducted by the customs authority at the time of that verification

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of European Union law in customs matters must be interpreted as meaning that a declarant cannot request a court to annul a customs declaration made by it when that declaration has been accepted by the customs authorities. By contrast, under the conditions laid down in Article 66 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, that declarant may request those authorities to invalidate that declaration, even after they have released the goods. At the conclusion of their assessment, the customs authorities must, subject to the possibility of a court action, either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or proceed with the invalidation requested.


(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
Case C-132/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium)) — Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley v Belgische Staat (Direct taxation — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Inheritance tax on registered shares — Limitation period for the valuation of shares in non-resident companies longer than that applicable for resident companies — Restriction — Justification)
Date: 2011-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital transfer tax, free movement of capital, tax system








C_2011319EN.01000601.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium)) — Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley v Belgische Staat
(Case C-132/10) (1)

(Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Inheritance tax on registered shares - Limitation period for the valuation of shares in non-resident companies longer than that applicable for resident companies - Restriction - Justification)
2011/C 319/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — National legislation providing, in respect of inheritance tax on registered shares, for a limitation period of two years where the centre of effective management of the company issuing the shares is in the Member State concerned, and for a limitation period of 10 years in other cases

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides, as regards inheritance tax, for a limitation period of 10 years for the valuation of registered shares in a company whose centre of effective management is established in another Member State, while the same limitation period is two years when the company’s centre of effective management is in the first Member State.


(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.