Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1394

10.3.2025

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) – Latvia) – ‘BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-376/23,

BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 - Free zones - Change of customs status of non-Union goods to Union goods - Records of the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone - Legitimate expectations - Res judicata)

(C/2025/1394)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ‘BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 214(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code

must be interpreted as not precluding the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone from including information in its records about the manner in which the free zone customs procedure was discharged and data that allows the identification of any documents, other than a customs declaration, relevant to discharge, without referring, in those records, to the master reference number that identifies the customs declaration that corresponds to the placing of the goods concerned under a subsequent customs procedure.

2.Article 214(1) and Article 215(1) of Regulation No 952/2013 and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446

must be interpreted as

not precluding the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone from entering, in its records, the discharge of the free zone special customs procedure with respect to certain goods and, at that time, from confining itself to including information therein relating solely to a consignment note drawn up in accordance with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May in 1956, as amended by the Protocol of 5 July 1978, accompanying those goods on their exit from the free zone concerned, which indicates the customs status of those goods, certified by the stamp of the customs office and signed by a customs official, in so far as the customs authorities have authorised that method of discharge pursuant to Article 178(3);

not requiring that holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone to verify the accuracy of that indication.

3.The principle of legitimate expectations

must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone may base such an expectation, that its records comply with Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, on an established administrative practice of the customs authorities from which it is apparent, in a precise and unconditional manner, that the inclusion in those records solely of information relating to a consignment note drawn up in accordance with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May in 1956, as amended by the Protocol of 5 July 1978, accompanying the goods concerned on their exit from a free zone, carrying a written indication of customs status, certified by the stamp of the customs office and signed by a customs agent, is sufficient to comply with the obligations flowing from that provision.

4.EU law does not preclude the application of a national provision concerning the authority of res judicata which obliges a Member State court to annul a customs debt owed by the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone pursuant to Article 79 of Regulation No 952/2013 on the ground that the court of that Member State with jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of an administrative penalty imposed on that holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone, for the same customs operations and for the same reasons as those which led to that debt, has found, in a judicial ruling that has become final, that the holder did not fail to fulfil the obligations falling on it under Union customs law.

* * *

(1)

Language of the case: Latvian

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1394/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a screening procedure carried out under that provision, a third party has provided the competent authority with objective evidence as regards the potential significant effects of that project on the environment, in particular on a species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, that authority must ask the developer to provide it with additional information and take that information into account before deciding whether or not an environmental impact assessment is necessary for that project. However, where, despite the observations submitted to that authority by a third party, the competent authority is able to rule out, on the basis of objective evidence, the possibility that the project in question is likely to have significant effects on the environment, that authority may decide that an environmental impact assessment is not necessary, without being required to ask the developer to provide it with additional information.

Gratsias

Passer

Smulders

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 March 2025.

Registrar

President of the Chamber

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140