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 62020CN0489

    Case C-489/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — UB v Kauno teritorinė muitinė

    IO C 433, 14.12.2020, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.12.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 433/34

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — UB v Kauno teritorinė muitinė

    (Case C-489/20)

    (2020/C 433/43)

    Language of the case: Lithuanian

    Referring court

    Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellant: UB

    Respondent: Kauno teritorinė muitinė

    Questions referred

    1.

    Is Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is extinguished where, in a situation such as that in the present case, smuggled goods were seized and subsequently confiscated after they had already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union?

    2.

    If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 2(b) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and Articles 2(1)(d) and 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to pay excise duty and/or VAT is not extinguished where, as in the present case, smuggled goods are seized and subsequently confiscated after they have already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union, even if the customs debt has been extinguished on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013?

    (1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

    (2)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.

    (3)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

    Top