- 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-64/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — General arrangements for excise duty — Directive 2008/118/EC — Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods — Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement — Goods missing on delivery — Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CA0064
62015CA0064
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
21.3.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 106/8
(Case C-64/15) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - General arrangements for excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods - Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement - Goods missing on delivery - Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods))
(2016/C 106/11)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: BP Europa SE
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement ends, for the purpose of that provision, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, when the consignee of those goods has found, on unloading in full from the means of transport carrying the goods in question, that there were shortages of the goods in comparison with the amount which should have been delivered to him.
2.The combined provisions of Articles 7(2)(a) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that:
— the situations which they govern are outside that referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive and
— the fact that a provision of national law transposing Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not expressly state that the irregularity governed by that provision of the directive must have given rise to the release for consumption of the goods concerned, such an omission cannot prevent the application of that national provision to the discovery of shortages, which of necessity entail such a release for consumption.
3.Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only where the total amount of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement failed to arrive at its destination, but also where only a part of those goods failed to arrive at its destination.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.