Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020CN0092

    Case C-92/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2020 — Rottendorf Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

    OJ C 201, 15.6.2020, p. 12–13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    15.6.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 201/12


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2020 — Rottendorf Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

    (Case C-92/20)

    (2020/C 201/18)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Rottendorf Pharma GmbH

    Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

    Question referred

    Is the second indent of Article 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which the non-Community goods imported by the person concerned were re-exported from the Community customs area and the circumstances that gave rise to the customs debt may not be attributed to obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned, the duty may be repaid?


    (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


    Top