Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven.
Date: 2001-09-27
41 According to settled case-law, the need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations makes it impossible, where uncertainty exists, for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation but requires, on the contrary, that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see in particular Case C-48/98 Söhl & Söhlke [1999] ECR I-7877, paragraph 46).
44 That interpretation is also in keeping with that placed on Article 900(1)(o) by the Court in Söhl & Söhlke. In paragraph 86 of that judgment, the Court held in essence that that provision, which in all language versions except German refers precisely to the same tariff treatments as Article 890 of the implementing regulation, namely, Community treatment and preferential tariff treatment, applies only to cases in which the goods would have been eligible for Community treatment or preferential tariff treatment, but not to cases in which the goods would have been eligible for other tariff measures.
45 It should be observed, as the Advocate General has in paragraph 79 of his Opinion, that while the term Zollbehandlung mit Abgabenbegünstigungen (literally, favourable customs treatment with regard to duties) used in the German- language version of the judgment in Söhl & Söhlke corresponds to the wording used in the German-language version of Article 900(1)(o) of the implementing regulation, it differs both from the terms used in all the other language versions of that provision, which clearly refer to preferential tariff treatment within the meaning of Article 20(3)(d) and (e) of the Customs Code, and from the term used in the German version of Article 890 of the implementing regulation. It follows that, for the reasons set out in paragraph 41 above, the term Zollbehandlung mit Abgabenbegünstigung used in the German version of Article 900(1)(o) of the implementing regulation and in the German version of the judgment in Söhl & Söhlke, paragraph 86, must be understood to refer to preferential tariff treatment within the meaning of Article 20(3)(d) and (e) of the Customs Code.
56 On this subject, it should be noted that the Court has held that factors which might constitute a special situation resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned for the purposes of that provision exist where, having regard to the objective of fairness underlying Article 239 of the Customs Code, factors liable to place the applicant in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business are found to exist (Case C-86/97 Trans-Ex-Import [1999] ECR I-1041, paragraph 22).
57 It must, however, be noted that, although national customs authorities are in certain circumstances required to ascertain whether there is any evidence which might constitute a special situation within the meaning of Article 905(1) of the implementing regulation, it is not for those authorities to determine whether the situation in question does in fact constitute a special situation justifying a remission of duties by the Commission, which alone is empowered to take such a decision (Trans-Ex-Import, paragraphs 19 and 20).
58 Finally, it is necessary to bear in mind the consistent case-law relating to the division of functions provided for by Article 234 EC, under which the role of the Court is limited to providing the national court with the guidance on interpretation necessary to resolve the case before it, while it is for the national court to apply the rules of Community law, as interpreted by the Court, to the facts of the case under consideration (Case C-342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraph 11).