Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/16

(Case C-323/22)

(2022/C 294/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KRI SpA, as the successor of SI.LO.NE. — Sistema logistico nord-est Srl

Respondent: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli

Question referred

Must the first sentence of Article 14 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 (1) be interpreted as meaning that in the event of irregular departure of the product subject to excise duty, the liability of the warehousekeeper guaranteeing payment of the duty is objective, with there being no possibility of exemption from that liability and from payment of the sums corresponding to the related financial penalties, even where that departure results from an unlawful act attributable — exclusively — to a third party, or can it be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from the tax and from the corresponding penalties is to be granted — as a fortuitous event or force majeure — to the guarantor warehousekeeper who not only has nothing whatsoever to do with the unlawful act of the third party but also had a legitimate and good faith expectation that the movement of the product under the duty suspension arrangement was regular?

(1) 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 (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).