CELEX: C2006/086/08
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (Association Agreement EEC-Hungary — Obligation of mutual assistance between customs authorities — Post-clearance recovery of import duties following revocation in the State of export of the movement)

8.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/5
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Second Chamber)
   of 9 February 2006
   in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (1)
   
   (Association Agreement EEC-Hungary - Obligation of mutual assistance between customs authorities - Post-clearance recovery of import duties following revocation in the State of export of the movement)
   (2006/C 86/08)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Greece), made by decision of 30 September 2003, received at the Court on 26 January 2004, in the proceedings between Sfakianakis AEVE and Elliniko Dimosio — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:
   
               1.
            
            
               Articles 31(2) and 32 of Protocol 4 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, as amended by Decision No 3/96 of the Association Council between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, of 28 December 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the State of import are bound to take account of judicial decisions delivered in the State of export on actions brought against the results of verification of the validity of goods movement certificates conducted by the customs authorities of the State of export, once they have been informed of the existence of those actions and the content of those decisions, regardless of whether the verification of the validity of the movement certificates was carried out at the request of the customs authorities of the State of import.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The effectiveness of the abolition of the imposition of customs duties under the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved by the decision of the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993, precludes administrative decisions imposing the payment of customs duties, taxes and penalties taken by the customs authorities of the State of import before the definitive result of actions brought against the findings of the subsequent verification have been communicated to them, when the decisions of the authorities of the State of export which initially issued the EUR.1 certificates have not been revoked or annulled.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The answer to the first three questions is not affected by the fact that neither the Greek customs authorities nor the Hungarian customs authorities sought convocation of the Association Committee pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol No 4, as amended by Decision 3/96.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.03.2004.
   
      OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.