- 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-230/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AAS v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 195 — Article 232(1)(a) — Article 221(3) — Common Customs Tariff — Recovery of the amount of the customs debt — Communication of the amount of duty to the debtor — Limitation period — Action taken against the guarantor to enforce the guarantee — Enforcement for the purposes of payment — Reasonable period)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0230
62020CA0230
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
12.7.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 278/23
(Case C-230/20) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 195 - Article 232(1)(a) - Article 221(3) - Common Customs Tariff - Recovery of the amount of the customs debt - Communication of the amount of duty to the debtor - Limitation period - Action taken against the guarantor to enforce the guarantee - Enforcement for the purposes of payment - Reasonable period)
(2021/C 278/32)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AAS
Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 195 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, must be interpreted as meaning that the guarantor of a customs debt referred to in that article cannot be regarded as a ‘debtor’ within the meaning of Article 221(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1186/2009, and, therefore, the limitation period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred laid down in that provision does not apply to that guarantor.
2.Article 232(1)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1186/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the Member States, laid down in that provision, to avail themselves of all options open to them under the legislation in force to secure payment of duties applies not only to the debtor, but also to the guarantor, and that the latter can therefore be regarded, pursuant to Article 232(1)(a), as the person subject to enforcement and to whom the Member State’s rules on enforcement, including those on time limits, apply.
3.The rule implied by the principle of legal certainty which requires a reasonable limitation period to be observed must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the action brought against the guarantor in order to secure the recovery of a customs debt.
(*)
Language of the case: Latvian
ECLI:EU:C:2021:140