CELEX: 62015CA0064
Language: en
Date: 2016-01-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-64/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — General arrangements for excise duty — Directive 2008/118/EC — Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods — Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement — Goods missing on delivery — Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods)

21.3.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 106/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-64/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - General arrangements for excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods - Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement - Goods missing on delivery - Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods))
   (2016/C 106/11)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesfinanzhof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: BP Europa SE
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement ends, for the purpose of that provision, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, when the consignee of those goods has found, on unloading in full from the means of transport carrying the goods in question, that there were shortages of the goods in comparison with the amount which should have been delivered to him.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The combined provisions of Articles 7(2)(a) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the situations which they govern are outside that referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the fact that a provision of national law transposing Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not expressly state that the irregularity governed by that provision of the directive must have given rise to the release for consumption of the goods concerned, such an omission cannot prevent the application of that national provision to the discovery of shortages, which of necessity entail such a release for consumption.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only where the total amount of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement failed to arrive at its destination, but also where only a part of those goods failed to arrive at its destination.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.