- 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-358/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 1 June 2022 — Bolloré logistics SA v Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0358
62022CN0358
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 340/18
(Case C-358/22)
(2022/C 340/23)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant in cassation: Bolloré logistics SA
Respondents in cassation: Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS
Questions referred
1.Must Articles 195, 217 and 221 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the customs administration may not demand payment of a customs debt from the joint and several guarantor when the duties have not been lawfully communicated to the debtor?
2(a)Does observance of the rights of the defence, including the right to present observations before any measure adversely affecting a person, which is a fundamental principle of EU law, mean that where, in the case of non-payment of the customs debt by the debtor within the prescribed period, its recovery is sought from the guarantor, the customs administration must first place the guarantor in a position in which it can effectively make known its views as regards the information on which the customs administration intends to base its decision to enforce payment?
2(b)Is the fact that the debtor of the customs debt has itself been placed in a position in which it can effectively make known its views before the communication of the duties relevant to the answer to Question 2(a)?
2(c)If Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative, what is the decision adversely affecting the guarantor before which there must be an inter partes phase: the decision of the customs administration to enter the duties in the accounts and to notify them to the debtor of the customs debt or the decision to enforce payment from the guarantor?
(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23.