- 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-161/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerp (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely v Belgische Staat
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0161
62008CN0161
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
19.7.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 183/10
(Case C-161/08)
(2008/C 183/19)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely
Respondent: Belgische Staat
Questions referred
(1)Must Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 (1) of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that the period laid down in Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention applies only for the benefit of the guaranteeing organisation, but not for that of the carnet holder, and that exceeding the period of one year from the date of acceptance of the TIR carnet in respect of the carnet holder affects entitlement to recover the customs debt or the excise duties and special excise duties and the liability for payment, and that exceeding the period of one year prejudices the right of the competent customs authorities to proceed to recovery of that debt?
(2)Must Article 2(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that the period laid down therein applies only for the furnishing of proof as to the regularity of the transport operation, but not for the furnishing of proof as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed?
(3)Must Article 2(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as the period laid down therein also applies for the furnishing of proof as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed, that period is not a strict period and that the carnet holder may still furnish that proof even after that period has expired?
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991 providing for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents (OJ 1991 L 148, p. 11).