CELEX: C2003/158/23
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-195/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp, by judgment of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov, Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or, Anzor, 4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili, Badri, 7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean System Transport BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf Louis, 10. United Logisitic Partners BVBA, 11. Decock, Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris, Johannes Marie-Louise, and 13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette Leonie Julienne

C 158/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,                       Customs Code or must the view be taken that in respect
Antwerp, by judgment of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the                         of those goods no customs debt has yet arisen?
case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or,                      4.    If the answer to the first question is negative must goods
Anzor, 4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili,                        which, even if not intentionally, were declared under an
Badri, 7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean                           incorrect designation/commercial designation be regard-
System Transport BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf                              ed as having been introduced unlawfully into the customs
Louis, 10. United Logisitic Partners BVBA, 11. Decock,                          territory of the Community (in other words imported in
Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris, Johannes Marie-Louise, and                        breach of the provisions of Articles 38 to 41 inclusive
        13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette Leonie Julienne                             and of the second indent of Article 177 of the Community
                                                                                Customs Code) as a result of which the customs debt in
                          (Case C-195/03)                                       respect of those goods arises under Article 202 of the
                                                                                Community Customs Code and the person making the
                          (2003/C 158/23)                                       summary declaration or the declaration for a customs
                                                                                procedure, even if with an incorrect designation/commer-
                                                                                cial designation, may be deemed to be the customs debtor
                                                                                only if he may be regarded as a debtor within the meaning
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of Article 202(3) of the Community Customs Code?
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep,
Antwerp, (Criminal Court of Appeal) of 7 May 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 12 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or, Anzor,
4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili, Badri,
7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean System Transport
BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf Louis, 10. United Logisitic             Action brought on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of
Partners BVBA, 11. Decock, Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris,                  the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Johannes Marie-Louise, and 13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette                                                 Luxembourg
Leonie Julienne on the following questions:
                                                                                                    (Case C-200/03)
1.    Must goods in respect of which a summary declaration
      was submitted with an incorrect designation/commercial
                                                                                                    (2003/C 158/24)
      designation (‘cookware’ instead of cigarettes), or goods
      which were declared under an incorrect designation/
      commercial designation for the purposes of a customs
      procedure (such as the procedure for external Community             An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
      customs transit), be regarded as being lawfully introduced          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      into the customs territory of the Community and,                    ties on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of the European
      accordingly, as being under customs supervision (tempor-            Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
      ary storage or customs procedure), notwithstanding the              acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      fact that, even if not intentionally, the goods bore an
      incorrect designation/commercial designation?
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.    If the answer to the first question is affirmative must the
      view be taken, in the case of removal from customs                  —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      supervision of goods which, even if not intentionally,                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      were declared under an incorrect designation/commercial                   Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the
      designation, that the customs debt arises under                           subject of additional measures concerning the official
      Article 203 of the Community Customs Code and must                        control of foodstuffs ( 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      the person liable to comply with the obligations arising                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
      out of temporary storage of the goods or from use of the
      customs procedure under which the goods (even if under              —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      an incorrect designation) were placed, also be regarded as
      a debtor in respect of the customs debt?
3.    If the answer to the first question is affirmative, on              Pleas in law and main arguments
      establishment by the customs authorities that the goods
      under customs supervision were declared, even if not
      intentionally, under an incorrect designation/commercial            The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
      designation, whilst the goods had not (by then) been                1 November 1998.
      removed from customs supervision and the customs
      authorities still had access to the goods, must the customs
      debt in respect of the goods which were declared under              (1 ) OJ L 290 of 24.11.1993, p. 14.
      an incorrect designation/commercial designation be
      regarded as arising under Article 204 of the Community