Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2006/224/47

    Case C-314/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2006 — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône v Administration des Douanes et Droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

    OJ C 224, 16.9.2006, p. 25–25 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.9.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 224/25

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2006 — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône v Administration des Douanes et Droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

    (Case C-314/06)

    (2006/C 224/47)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Cour de Cassation

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Société Pipeline Méditerranée and Rhône

    Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must the concept of force majeure giving rise to losses of products under duty suspension arrangements, within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1), be interpreted as meaning unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the approved warehousekeeper who seeks to rely on those circumstances in support of its application for exemption from duty, or is it sufficient that the approved warehousekeeper could not have avoided those circumstances?

    2.

    Can losses of part of products which have leaked from a pipeline due to their liquid nature and to the characteristics of the ground on which they spilled, which hindered their recovery and led to the levying of duty on them, be regarded as inherent in the nature of the products within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12?

    (1)  OJ L 76, p.l

    Top