CELEX: 62015CA0679
Language: en
Date: 2017-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-679/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods — Meaning of ‘debtor’ — Employee of a legal person responsible for the unlawful introduction — Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence — Determination)

13.3.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 78/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
   (Case C-679/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods - Meaning of ‘debtor’ - Employee of a legal person responsible for the unlawful introduction - Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence - Determination))
   (2017/C 078/06)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Ultra-Brag AG
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 202(3), first indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person of which an employee, who is not its statuary representative, is responsible for the unlawful introduction of goods in the customs territory of the European Union, may be regarded as the debtor of the customs debt resulting from that introduction, where that employee introduced the goods at issue while carrying out the assignment entrusted to him by his employer and while fulfilling the instructions given, to that end, by another of the employer’s employees, empowered to give such instructions in the performance of his own duties, and who thus acted within the scope of his remit, in the name and on behalf of his employer.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that in order to establish fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence within the meaning of that article on the part of an employer, who is a legal person, it is appropriate to refer not just to the employer himself, but also to attribute to him the conduct of the employee(s) who, while fulfilling the assignment entrusted to them by their employer with the result that they acted within the scope of their respective remits in the name and on behalf of their employer, were responsible for the unlawful introduction of the goods.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.