- 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-489/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UB v Kauno teritorinė muitinė (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Union Customs Code — Extinguishment of the customs debt — Goods unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the European Union — Seizure and confiscation — Directive 2008/118/EC — Excise duties — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax — Chargeable event — Chargeability)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0489
62020CA0489
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
30.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 213/12
(Case C-489/20) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Union Customs Code - Extinguishment of the customs debt - Goods unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the European Union - Seizure and confiscation - Directive 2008/118/EC - Excise duties - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax - Chargeable event - Chargeability)
(2022/C 213/13)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: UB
Respondent: Kauno teritorinė muitinė
Interested party: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų ministerijos
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is extinguished where goods are seized and subsequently confiscated when they have already been unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the European Union.
2.Article 2(b) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC, as well as Article 2(1)(d) and Article 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the extinguishment of the customs debt on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of the Union Customs Code does not lead to the extinguishment of the debt linked, respectively, to excise duty and to value added tax in respect of goods unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the European Union.
(*) Language of the case: Lithuanian
ECLI:EU:C:2022:140