- 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 C-64/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2015 — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0064
62015CN0064
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
27.4.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 138/37
(Case C-64/15)
(2015/C 138/50)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: BP Europa SE
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
Questions referred
1.Is Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions which it lays down are fulfilled only in the case where the total quantity of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement has not arrived at their destination, or can that rule, account being taken of Article 10(6) of Directive 2008/118/EC, also be applied to cases in which only a portion of the excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement fails to arrive at the destination?
2.Is Article 20(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement does not end until the consignee has fully unloaded the means of transport which has arrived at his premises, with the result that a deficit detected during unloading is deemed to have been detected while the movement was still ongoing?
3.Does Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 7(2)(a), of Directive 2008/118/EC preclude a national provision under which the competence of the Member State of destination to levy duty (apart from being excluded in the cases provided for in Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC) is made subject only to the detection of the occurrence of an irregularity and the impossibility of determining the place where that irregularity occurred, or is it also necessary to establish that, by being removed from the duty suspension arrangement, the excise goods have been released for consumption?
4.Is Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 2008/118/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, where an irregularity as provided for in Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC has been detected, excise goods moved under a duty suspension arrangement which have not arrived at the destination must be assumed to have been released for consumption in all cases in which the proof of total destruction or irretrievable loss of the missing quantity required under Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC cannot be furnished?
Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).