Communication: judgment No. 0711 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020CA0711
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
2
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



16.5.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/9


Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Generální ředitelství cel v TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

(Case C-711/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 92/12/EC - Article 4 - Movement of products under excise duty suspension - Conditions - Articles 6 and 20 - Release of products for consumption - Falsification of the accompanying administrative document - Offence or irregularity committed in the course of the movement of products subject to excise duty under a duty suspension arrangement - Irregular departure of products from a suspension arrangement - Consignee unaware of the movement - Fraud committed by a third party - Article 13(a) and Article 15(3) - Compulsory guarantee to cover movement - Scope)

(2022/C 198/12)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generální ředitelství cel

Defendant: TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the dispatch, by an authorised warehousekeeper, of products subject to excise duty, under cover of an accompanying document and a compulsory guarantee, constitutes movement of products under excise duty suspension, within the meaning of Article 4(c) thereof, notwithstanding the fact that, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of third parties, the consignee indicated in that accompanying document and in that guarantee is unaware that those products have been dispatched to him or her, as long as that fact or another irregularity or infringement has not been established by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned.

The fact that the compulsory guarantee provided by the authorised warehousekeeper for the purpose of such dispatch specifies the name of the authorised consignee, but not his or her status as a registered trader, shall not affect the lawfulness of such movement.


(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.