Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62008CN0550

Case C-550/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2008 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

IO C 69, 21.3.2009, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
11/12/2008
Date lodged:
11/12/2008
Author:
An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Gearmáinis
Type of procedure:
Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
  • request for interpretation 31992L0012 airteagal 15.4
  • request for interpretation 31992L0012 airteagal 18
  • request for interpretation 31992L0012 airteagal 5.2 L 1 fleasc 1
  • request for interpretation 31992R2913 airteagal 84.1 PT A)1
Link

21.3.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2008 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

(Case C-550/08)

(2009/C 69/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

Questions referred

1.

Must the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) be interpreted as meaning that non-Community goods subject to excise duty which have been placed under an inward processing procedure within the terms of Article 84(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) are to be deemed to be subject to duty-suspension arrangements even if they are produced, under an inward processing procedure, from goods which are not subject to excise duty only after the importation of those goods and therefore, in accordance with the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/12/EEC, when they are being moved there is no need for the accompanying document referred to in Article 18(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be used?

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative:

Must Article 15(4) of Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that proof that the consignee has taken delivery of the goods may also be provided otherwise than by means of the accompanying document referred to in Article 18 of Directive 92/12/EEC?

(1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

Top