DP grup EOOD v Direktor na Agentsia "Mitnitsi".
Date: 2011-09-15
28. It should be recalled that, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (see, inter alia, Case C‑459/07 Elshani [2009] ECR I‑2759, paragraph 40, and Case C‑339/09 Skoma-Lux  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 21).
29. However, it is for the Court, as part of those proceedings, to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it. Moreover, the Court has a duty to interpret all provisions of European Union law which national courts require in order to decide the actions pending before them, even if those provisions are not expressly indicated in the questions referred to the Court of Justice by those courts (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑45/06 Campina [2007] ECR I‑2089, paragraphs 30 and 31; Joined Cases C‑329/06 and C‑343/06 Wiedemann and Funk [2008] ECR I‑4635, paragraph 45; and Case C‑243/09 Fuß  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 39).
33. As is clear from Article 59(1) of the Customs Code, European Union customs law establishes the principle whereby all goods intended to be placed under a customs procedure must be covered by a declaration.
37. With the aim, expressed in the sixth recital in the preamble to the Customs Code, of keeping customs formalities and controls to a minimum, that Code does not require customs authorities to systematically carry out such verifications. Thus, under Article 71(2) of the Customs Code, where the customs declaration is not verified, the provisions governing the customs procedure under which the goods are placed are to be applied on the basis of the particulars contained in that declaration.
39. In that regard, it is important to point out that, as the Advocate General stated at point 29 of his Opinion and contrary to the arguments of DP grup before the referring court, where the customs authorities accept a customs declaration signed by the declarant or its representative, Article 63 of the Customs Code requires that they confine themselves to monitoring compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 62 of that Code. Consequently, when a customs declaration is accepted, those authorities do not take a decision on the accuracy of the information provided by the declarant, for which the latter assumes responsibility. Indeed, it follows from the wording of Article 68 of the Customs Code that acceptance of the declaration does not prevent those authorities from subsequently verifying the accuracy of the information, where necessary even after the goods have been released.
40. The obligation on the declarant to provide accurate information also extends to the determination of the correct subheading at the time of the tariff classification of the goods (see, by analogy, Case 378/87 Top Hit Holzvertrieb v Commission  [1989] ECR 1359, paragraph 26), the declarant being able, if there is any doubt, to request in advance from the customs authorities a binding tariff information, pursuant to Article 12 of the Customs Code.
41. The aforementioned obligation has as its corollary the principle of the irrevocability of the customs declaration once it has been accepted, a principle the exceptions to which are strictly defined by the relevant European Union legislation.
45. At the conclusion of their assessment, those authorities must thus, subject to the possibility of a subsequent court action, either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or proceed with the invalidation requested (see, by analogy, Case C‑468/03 Overland Footwear  [2005] ECR I‑8937, paragraph 50).
47. As regards, moreover, the instructions given to the referring court by the Varhoven administrativen sad, it should be recalled that European Union law precludes a national court which is called upon to decide a case referred back to it by a higher court hearing an appeal from being bound, in accordance with national procedural law, by legal rulings of that higher court, if it takes the view, having regard to the interpretation which it has sought from the Court, that those rulings are inconsistent with European Union law (Case C‑173/09 Elchinov  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 32).