Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1543

17.3.2025

(Case T-690/24, Kolinsen)

(C/2025/1543)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on appeal, defendant at first instance: Inspecteur van de Douane

Respondent on appeal, applicant at first instance: FL

Question referred

Is Article 10(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (3) to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions laid down in that provision are fulfilled in a case where the goods moved under the duty suspension arrangement have not arrived, or have not arrived in their entirety, at their destination, and that shortfall has not been detected until the means of transport was unloaded, so that that detection of the shortfall constitutes the irregularity and the Member State of arrival therefore has the competence to levy the duty? Or is the earlier event, which remains unknown, which led to the shortfall to be regarded as the irregularity referred to in Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC, so that the Member State of dispatch has the competence to levy the duty?

—

The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)

OJ 2009 L 9, p. 1.

(3)

OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1543/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—