- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-177/25, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Gdańsku: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 February 2025 – C. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Gdańsku
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0177
62025TN0177
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2025/2563
12.5.2025
(Case T-177/25, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Gdańsku)
(C/2025/2563)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: C. sp. z o.o. sp.k.
Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Gdańsku
Questions referred
Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that giving priority in the use of a tariff quota to entities making a customs declaration with the intention of later amending it under Article 173(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) over those making a correct customs declaration at the earliest possible date breaches the principles of equality, justice and solidarity?
Must Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code be interpreted as allowing a customs declaration to be amended in order to ‘comply with the obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned’ by supplementing it (for instance, with a tariff quota number) and by replacing the erga omnes rate with a preferential duty rate in the customs declaration?
Must Article 22(3), read in conjunction with Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, be interpreted as meaning that the date on which a request to apply a tariff quota is submitted for an entity that makes an incomplete customs declaration is the date on which it was originally submitted or rather the date on which the administrative decision by which the customs authority permits the customs declaration to be amended becomes final, assuming that the maximum time limit for taking that decision is 120 days?
Must Article 120(1) of the Union Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that special circumstances where ‘no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the debtor’ in connection with a customs debt being incurred also obtain if that debt is incurred despite the submission, at the earliest possible date, of a correct customs declaration with the preferential duty rate resulting from a tariff quota?
—
(1)
OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2563/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—