Case C‑679/15

Ultra-Brag AG

v

Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods — Meaning of ‘debtor’ — Employee of a legal person responsible for the unlawful introduction — Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence — Determination)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 25 January 2017

1. Customs union—Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods—Meaning of ‘debtor’—Employer of the person who introduced the goods—Employee is not legal representative of employer—Included—Condition—Employee who acted within the scope of his duties in the name and on behalf of his employer

   (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 202(3))

2. Customs union—Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods—Exception—Failure to fulfil obligations not involving fraudulent or manifest negligence—Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence—Determination—Conduct of employees responsible for the introduction, acting within the framework of their respective attributions in the name and on behalf of their employer, attributable to employer

   (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 212a)

1.  The first indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person of which an employee, who is not its statutory representative, is responsible for the unlawful introduction of goods in the customs territory of the European Union, may be regarded as the debtor of the customs debt resulting from that introduction, where that employee introduced the goods at issue while carrying out the assignment entrusted to him by his employer and while fulfilling the instructions given, to that end, by another of the employer’s employees, empowered to give such instructions in the performance of his own duties, and who thus acted within the scope of his remit, in the name and on behalf of his employer.

   (see para. 34, operative part 1)

2.  Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that in order to establish fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence within the meaning of that article on the part of an employer, who is a legal person, it is appropriate to refer not just to the employer himself, but also to attribute to him the conduct of the employee(s) who, while fulfilling the assignment entrusted to them by their employer with the result that they acted within the scope of their respective remits in the name and on behalf of their employer, were responsible for the unlawful introduction of the goods.

   (see para. 41, operative part 2)