1.

Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that giving priority in the use of a tariff quota to entities making a customs declaration with the intention of later amending it under Article 173(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) over those making a correct customs declaration at the earliest possible date breaches the principles of equality, justice and solidarity?

2.

Must Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code be interpreted as allowing a customs declaration to be amended in order to ‘comply with the obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned’ by supplementing it (for instance, with a tariff quota number) and by replacing the erga omnes rate with a preferential duty rate in the customs declaration?

3.

Must Article 22(3), read in conjunction with Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, be interpreted as meaning that the date on which a request to apply a tariff quota is submitted for an entity that makes an incomplete customs declaration is the date on which it was originally submitted or rather the date on which the administrative decision by which the customs authority permits the customs declaration to be amended becomes final, assuming that the maximum time limit for taking that decision is 120 days?

4.

Must Article 120(1) of the Union Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that special circumstances where ‘no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the debtor’ in connection with a customs debt being incurred also obtain if that debt is incurred despite the submission, at the earliest possible date, of a correct customs declaration with the preferential duty rate resulting from a tariff quota?