CELEX: 62012CA0613
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-613/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Request for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Egypt — Article 20 of Protocol 4 — Proof of origin — Movement certificate EUR.1 — Replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued at a time when the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authority — Refusal to apply preferential treatment)

29.3.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 93/15
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   (Case C-613/12) (1)
   
   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Egypt - Article 20 of Protocol 4 - Proof of origin - Movement certificate EUR.1 - Replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued at a time when the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authority - Refusal to apply preferential treatment)
   2014/C 93/23
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Helm Düngemittel GmbH
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 20 of Protocol 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 39), as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU-Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006 (OJ 2006 L 73, p. 1) — Replacement movement certificate issued subsequently, at a point in time at which the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authorities.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2001, approved by Council Decision 2004/635/EC of 21 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the Egyptian origin of goods, within the meaning of the preferential customs arrangement established by that agreement, can be proved even in the case where the goods were divided up when they arrived in a first Member State in order that a portion of them could be sent to a second Member State and where the replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the customs authorities of the first Member State for the portion of those goods sent to the second Member State does not satisfy the conditions for the issuance of such a certificate set out in Article 20 of Protocol 4 to that agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The administration of such proof requires, however, first, that the preferential origin of the goods initially imported from Egypt be established by means of a movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the Egyptian customs authorities in accordance with that protocol and, second, that the importer prove that the portion of the goods divided up in that first Member State and dispatched to the second Member State corresponds to a portion of the goods imported from Egypt into the first Member State. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2003.