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 62015CN0679

Case C-679/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016, p. 5–6 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.3.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-679/15)

(2016/C 111/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ultra-Brag AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Questions referred

1.

Is the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, ‘the CC’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person becomes a customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3) of the CC as the person who introduced goods if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, brought about the unlawful introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

Is the second indent of Article 202(3) of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that

a)

a legal person participates in an unlawful introduction (even) if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, was involved in that introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility, and

b)

in the case of legal persons who participate in an unlawful introduction, the subjective element that they ‘were aware or should reasonably have been aware’ is to be determined by reference to the natural person in the legal person’s undertaking to whom the matter is entrusted, even if he is not the statutory representative of the legal person?

3.

If the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 212a of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that whether the conduct of a participant involves fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence is to be determined, in the case of a legal person, solely by reference to the conduct of the legal person or its organs, or is the conduct of a natural person employed by it and entrusted with the task within the scope of his responsibility to be attributed to it?

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

Top