- 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-131/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 — Article 3(3) — Tariff quota — Garlic of Argentinian origin — Import licences — Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences — Circumvention — Abuse of rights — Conditions — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 4(3))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0131
62014CA0131
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
C 211/5
(Case C-131/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 - Article 3(3) - Tariff quota - Garlic of Argentinian origin - Import licences - Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences - Circumvention - Abuse of rights - Conditions - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 4(3)))
(2016/C 211/05)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino
Defendants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno
Intervening party: Roberto Cervati
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 of 2 April 2002 establishing the method for managing tariff quotas and introducing a system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries and Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that they do not, in principle, preclude a mechanism, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, following an order placed by an operator, a traditional importer within the meaning of the former regulation, having exhausted its licences to import at a preferential rate of duty, with a second operator, also a traditional importer not holding such licences,
—goods are, first of all, sold, outside the European Union, by an undertaking connected with the second operator, to a third operator, a new importer within the meaning of the former regulation, holding such licences,
—the goods are, then, released for free circulation in the European Union by the third operator at the preferential rate of customs duty, subsequently sold on by the third to the second operator and
—the goods are, finally, sold by the second to the first operator, which thereby acquires goods imported under the tariff quota set out in the former regulation despite the fact that the first operator does not hold the necessary licences for so doing.
*
Language of the case: Italian
(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.