Case C-224/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Asotsiatsiya na balgarskite predpriyatiya za mezhdunarodni prevozi i patishtata (AEBTRI) v Nachalnik na Mitinitsa Burgas (Director of the Burgas customs office) as successor to the Svilengrad customs office
Date: 2016-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU), carriage of goods, customs debt, debt, free movement of goods, international road transport, jurisdiction ratione materiae, transport document








C_2016243EN.01002201.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Asotsiatsiya na balgarskite predpriyatiya za mezhdunarodni prevozi i patishtata (AEBTRI) v Nachalnik na Mitinitsa Burgas (Director of the Burgas customs office) as successor to the Svilengrad customs office
(Case C-224/16)
(2016/C 243/23)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Asotsiatsiya na balgarskite predpriyatiya za mezhdunarodni prevozi i patishtata (AEBTRI)

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Nachalnik na Mitinitsa Burgas (Director of the Burgas customs office) as successor to the Svilengrad customs office

Questions referred







1.


Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction, with a view to forestalling divergent judgments, to interpret, in a manner binding on the courts of the Member States, the TIR Convention, approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/78 of 25 July 1978 (1) concerning the conclusion of the Customs Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention) of 14 November 1975 at Geneva (OJ 1978 L 252, p. 1, in force in the Community as from 20 June 1983), in so far as concerns the scope of Articles 8 and 11 of that convention, with regard to the assessment of liability of a guaranteeing association, also referred to in Article 457(2) of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code (CCIP)? (2)











2.


Does the interpretation of Article 457(2) of the CCIP, in conjunction with Article 8(7) (now Article 11(2)) of the TIR Convention and the explanatory notes thereto, allow for a finding that, in a situation such as that in the present case, where the debts referred to in Article 8(1) and (2) of the [TIR Convention] become due, the customs authorities have required payment thereof so far as possible from the holder of the TIR carnet, who is directly liable for those sums, before bringing a claim against the guaranteeing association?










3.


Must the recipient, who acquired or held an item known to have been conveyed under cover of a TIR carnet, where it was not established that that item was submitted and declared before the customs office of destination, be considered to be, on account of those circumstances alone, a person who should have been aware that that item had been removed from customs supervision, and to be recognised as jointly and severally liable within the meaning of the third indent of Article 203(3), in conjunction with Article 213, of the Community Customs Code?










4.


If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does the customs administration’s failure to require payment of the customs debt from the recipient preclude the liability under Article 457(2) of the CCIP of the guaranteeing association, pursuant to Article 1(16) of the [TIR Convention]?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/78 of 25 July 1978 concerning the conclusion of the Customs Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention) of 14 November 1975 at Geneva (OJ 1978 L 252, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).