Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna.
Date: 2014-03-13
33. According to settled case-law of the Court, in the absence of European Union rules in this area, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which litigants derive from European Union law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by European Union law (principle of effectiveness) (see, inter alia, Case C‑262/09 Meilicke and Others  [2011] ECR I‑5669, paragraph 55, and Case C‑603/10 Pelati  [2012] ECR, paragraph 23).
38. Moreover, as regards respect for the principle of res judicata , the rules implementing that principle must also comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (see, to that effect, Case C‑2/08 Fallimento Olimpiclub  [2009] ECR I‑7501, paragraph 24).
43. As the Court has previously held in Case C‑1/99 Kofisa Italia  [2001] ECR I‑207, paragraph 36, there is nothing in the wording of that provision to indicate that the appeal before the customs authority is a mandatory stage prior to lodging an appeal before the independent body.
44. In the same judgment, the Court also stated that Article 243 of the Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for national law to determine whether an operator must initially bring an appeal before the customs authority or whether he may appeal directly to the judicial authority ( Kofisa Italia , paragraph 43).
53. In this respect, it must be observed that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, 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 Case C‑545/07 Apis-Hristovich  [2009] ECR I‑1627, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
54. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of European Union law, the Court of Justice is in principle bound to give a ruling (see Apis-Hristovich , paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
57. It must be noted that observance of the rights of the defence is a general principle of European Union law which applies where the authorities are minded to adopt a measure which will adversely affect an individual (Case C‑349/07 Sopropé  [2008] ECR I‑10369, point 36). In accordance with that principle, expressly set out in Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests must therefore be placed in a position in which they can effectively make known their views as regards the information on which the authorities intend to base their decision. Therefore they must be given a sufficient period of time in which to do so ( Sopropé , paragraph 37 and the case‑law cited).