CELEX: C2006/086/25
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-62/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of  11 January 2006  in the proceedings Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.

8.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/14
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 11 January 2006 in the proceedings Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.
   (Case C-62/06)
   (2006/C 86/25)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo of 11 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 6 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas and Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda. on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               For the purposes of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1) of 24 July 1979, is classification by the customs authority as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ sufficient, or is it instead necessary that that classification should be made by the competent criminal court?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In the latter hypothesis, is it sufficient for the competent criminal authority (in the case of Portugal, the Public Prosecutor's Office) simply to lay a charge, or is it instead necessary that the debtor should be convicted in the relevant criminal proceedings?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Still in the latter hypothesis, are different conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the court acquits the debtor by virtue of the application of the principle in dubio pro reo, or acquits him because it has been proved that the debtor did not commit the offence in question?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               What consequences follow if the Public Prosecutor's Office does not lay a charge against the debtor, holding that there is no evidence of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings? Will such a decision preclude any action to recover the duty not collected?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               If the Public Prosecutor's Office or the criminal court itself should close the case because the criminal proceedings are time-barred, will such a decision make it impossible to bring the corresponding action to recover the duty not collected?
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties.