Case C‑547/15

Interservice d.o.o. Koper

v

Sándor Horváth

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 96 — External transit procedure — Definition of ‘carrier’ — Failure to produce goods at the customs office of destination — Liability — Transport subcontractor who has handed the goods over to the main carrier in the car park of the customs office of destination and subsequently again assumed responsibility for the goods in order to continue with the transport)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 21 December 2016

  1. EU law—Interpretation—Methods—Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation

  2. Customs union—External transit procedure—Obligation to produce goods at the customs office of destination—Concept of carrier—Transport subcontractor who actually transports the goods moving under the external transport procedure—Included

    (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, Art. 96(2))

  3. Customs union—External transit procedure—Obligation to produce goods at the customs office of destination—Transport subcontractor who hands the goods over to the main carrier in the car park of the customs office and subsequently again assumes responsibility for the goods in order to continue with the transport—Liability of that subcontractor—Conditions

    (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, Arts 37 and 96(2))

  1.  See the text of the decision.

    (see para. 20)

  2.  The concept of a ‘carrier’ under an obligation to produce goods intact at the customs office of destination in Article 96(2) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, is to be interpreted as referring to any person, including a transport subcontractor, who actually transports the goods moving under the external Community transit procedure and has agreed to transport the goods knowing that they are moving under that procedure.

    (see para. 26, operative part 1)

  3.  Article 96(2) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that a transport subcontractor who has, first, handed over the goods to the main carrier, together with the transit document, at the car park of the customs office of destination and, second, assumed responsibility for the goods once again in order to continue with the transport, was under an obligation to ensure that the goods were produced at the customs office of destination and may be held liable for any failure to ensure that the goods were thus produced only if he was aware, when he again assumed responsibility for the goods, that the transit procedure had not been properly completed, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

    The liability of the carrier under that provision is based on physical control of the goods. Accordingly, a carrier who transfers that control to another carrier by handing over the goods has, in principle, discharged the obligation laid down in that provision, provided that the second carrier is aware that the goods are moving under Community transit. While the fact that goods brought into the customs territory of the Community are subject to customs supervision, as provided for in Article 37 of the Customs Code, precludes the carrier from freeing himself of his liability under Article 96(2) of the code by handing the goods over to simply any other person, the carrier may nonetheless discharge that liability by handing them over to another person who is, pursuant to Article 96 of that code, under an obligation to produce the goods in a satisfactory manner at the customs office of destination, such as another carrier who accepts the goods knowing that they are moving under Community transit.

    (see para. 31, 32, 39, operative part 2)