Case C-437/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 August 2013 — Unitrading Ltd; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2013-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, customs duties, customs inspection, data protection, interpretation of the law, originating product, surveillance concerning imports








C_2013325EN.01001301.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 August 2013 — Unitrading Ltd; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-437/13)
2013/C 325/21
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Unitrading Ltd

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Do the rights enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (1) [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] mean that if customs authorities, in the context of the submission of evidence as to the origin of imported goods, intend to rely on the results of an examination carried out by a third party with regard to which that third party does not disclose further information either to the customs authorities or to the declarant, as a result of which it is made difficult or impossible for the defence to verify or disprove the correctness of the conclusion arrived at and the court is hampered in its task of evaluating the results of the examination, those examination results may not be taken into account by the court? Does it make any difference to the answer to that question that that third party withholds the information concerned from the customs authorities and from the party concerned on the ground, not further explained, that ‘law enforcement sensitive information’ is involved?










2.


Do the rights enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter mean that when the customs authorities cannot disclose further information in respect of the examination carried out which forms the basis for their position that the goods have a specific origin — the results of which are challenged by reasoned submissions — the customs authorities — in so far as can reasonably be expected of them — must cooperate with the party concerned in connection with the latter’s request that it conduct, at its own expense, an inspection and/or sampling in the country of origin claimed by that party?










3.


Does it make a difference to the answer to the first and second questions that, following the notification of the customs duties payable, portions of the samples of the goods, to which the party concerned could have obtained access with a view to having an examination carried out by another laboratory, were still available for a limited period, even though the result of such an examination would have had no bearing on the fact that the results obtained by the laboratory used by the customs authorities could not be verified, with the result that even in that case it would have been impossible for the court — if that other laboratory were to find in favour of the origin claimed by the party concerned — to compare the results of the two laboratories with respect to their reliability? If so, must the customs authorities point out to the party concerned that portions of the samples of the goods are still available and that it may request those samples for purposes of such an examination?






(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.