Conclusions
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
TIZZANO
delivered on 12 June 2003 (1)
Case C-337/01
Hamann International GmbH Spedition + Logistik
v
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany))
((Common commercial policy – Community Customs Code – Customs supervision – Removal – Incurrence of a customs debt))
1. By an order of 17 July 2001, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) made a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary
ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code
(2)
(hereinafter the
Customs Code or, simply, the
Code). In short, the German court asks whether there is, for the purposes of Article 203(1) of the Code, removal from customs
supervision when non-Community goods which are subject to the customs warehousing procedure and are intended for re-export
from the customs territory of the Community were not placed under the external transit procedure immediately on removal from
the customs warehouse prior to being conveyed to the exit customs office.
I ─ Legal framework
The Customs Code
Customs supervision
2. Article 4 of the Community Customs Code lays down certain general definitions in the area and provides, in particular, that: For the purposes of this Code, the following definitions shall apply:...
(13) Supervision by the customs authorities means action taken in general by those authorities with a view to ensuring that customs rules and, where appropriate, other
provision applicable to goods subject to customs supervision are observed.
(14) Control by the customs authorities means the performance of specific acts such as examining goods, verifying the existence and authenticity of documents, examining
the accounts of undertakings and other records, inspecting means of transport, inspecting luggage and other goods carried
by or on persons and carrying out official inquiries and other similar acts with a view to ensuring that customs rules and,
where appropriate, other provisions applicable to goods subject to customs supervision are observed.
3. For the purposes of Article 37:
1. Goods brought into the customs territory of the Community shall, from the time of their entry, be subject to customs supervision.
They may be subject to control by the customs authority in accordance with the provisions in force.
2. They shall remain under such supervision for as long as necessary to determine their customs status, if appropriate, and in
the case of non-Community goods and without prejudice to Article 82(1), until their customs status is changed, they enter
a free zone or free warehouse or they are re-exported or destroyed in accordance with Article 182.
The relevant customs regimes
4. It is well-known that the Customs Code provides for various customs procedures, including the external transit procedure,
a
suspensive regime, and customs warehousing, a customs procedure which is both
suspensive and
with economic impact (Article 84(a) and (b)).
External transit procedure
5. According to Article 91(1), the external transit procedure allows, for present purposes, for the movement of non-Community
goods from one point to another within the customs territory of the Community,
without such goods being subject to import duties and other charges or to commercial policy measures.
Customs warehousing
6. Customs warehousing, governed by Articles 98 et seq. of the Code, allows, for its part, for the storage in a customs warehouse
of non-Community goods without such goods being subject to import duties or commercial policy measures (Article 98(1)).
7. According to Article 110,
where circumstances so warrant, goods placed under the customs warehousing procedure may be temporarily removed from the customs
warehouse. Such removal must be authorised in advance by the customs authorities, who shall stipulate the conditions on which
it may take place.
The incurrence of a customs debt
8. Article 201 et seq. identify the cases in which a customs debt on importation is incurred.
9. In particular, for the purposes of Article 203:
1. A customs debt on importation shall be incurred through:
─
the unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties.
2. The customs debt shall be incurred at the moment when the goods are removed from customs supervision.
...
.
10. Under Article 204(1), a customs debt on importation is also incurred through:
(a) non-fulfilment of one of the obligations arising, in respect of goods liable to import duties, from their temporary storage
or from the use of the customs procedure under which they are placed, or
(b) non-compliance with a condition governing the placing of the goods under that procedure or the granting of a reduced or zero
rate of import duty by virtue of the end-use of the goods,in cases other than those referred to in Article 203 unless it is established that those failures have no significant effect
on the correct operation of the temporary storage or customs procedure in question.
Repayment of duties
11. Repayment of customs duties is governed by Article 235 et seq. of the Code.
12. For the purposes of the present case, Article 236(1) in particular, should be noted, according to which import duties or export duties shall be repaid in so far as it is established that when they were paid the amount of such
duties was not legally owed. Nevertheless, repayment will not be granted
when the facts which led to the payment ... of an amount which was not legally owed are the result of deliberate action by
the person concerned.
13. Moreover, and in so far as is relevant here, it should be borne in mind that, according to Article 239, repayment may also
be granted
in situations other than those referred to in Articles 236, 237 and 238 ... resulting from circumstances in which no deception
or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned (Article 239(1)). In such a case, repayment will be granted
upon submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within 12 months from the date on which the amount of
the duties was communicated to the debtor (Article 239(2)).
The implementing provisions
14. Commission Regulation No 2454/93, which lays down the provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code (hereinafter
the implementing regulation or simply
the Regulation),
(3)
is also relevant to the present action.
15. Of particular relevance in this respect is Article 859 et seq., laying down provisions for the implementation of Article 204
of the Code, mentioned above.
16. Article 859 provides, in particular, that: The following failures shall be considered to have no significant effect on the correct operation of the temporary storage
or customs procedure in question within the meaning of Article 204(1) of the Code, provided:
- ─
they do not constitute an attempt to remove the goods unlawfully from customs supervision,
they do not constitute an attempt to remove the goods unlawfully from customs supervision,
- ─
they do not imply obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned, and
they do not imply obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned, and
- ─
all the formalities necessary to regularise the situation of the goods are subsequently carried out: ...
all the formalities necessary to regularise the situation of the goods are subsequently carried out: ...
6. in the case of goods in temporary storage or placed under a customs procedure, removal of the goods from the customs territory
of the Community or their entry into a free zone or free warehouse without completion of the necessary formalities; ...
.
17. Article 860 specifies that:The customs authorities shall consider a customs debt to have been incurred under Article 204(1) of the Code unless the person
who would be the debtor establishes that the conditions set out in Article 859 are fulfilled.
18. Moreover, Article 861 adds that:The fact that the failures referred to in Article 859 do not give rise to a customs debt shall not preclude the application
of provisions of criminal law in force or of provisions allowing cancellation and withdrawal of authorisations issued under
the customs procedure in question.
19. Article 899 et seq. laying down the implementing provisions of Article 239 of the Customs Code should also be recalled.
20. Article 899 in particular provides that
... where the decision-making customs authority establishes that an application for repayment or remission submitted to it
under Article 239(2) of the Code is based on grounds corresponding to one of the circumstances referred to in Articles 900
to 903, and that these do not result from deception or obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned, it shall repay
or remit the amount of import duties concerned. Where, on the other hand, it is established
that an application for repayment or remission ... is based on grounds corresponding to one of the circumstance referred to
in Article 904, it shall not repay or remit the amount of import duties concerned.
21. Articles 900 to 903, for their part, contain a list of the situations in which repayment will be made, whereas Article 904
lists those situations in which repayment may not be made.
22. Finally, Article 905(1) provides that: Where the decision-making customs authority to which an application for repayment or remission under Article 239(2) of the
Code has been submitted cannot take a decision on the basis of Article 899, but the application is supported by evidence which
might constitute a special situation resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed
to the person concerned, the Member State to which this authority belongs shall transmit the case to the Commission to be
settled under the procedure laid down in Articles 906 to 909. ...In all other cases, the decision-making customs authority shall refuse the application.
23. The implementing regulation was amended most recently by Commission Regulation No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001.
(4)
The new provisions do not apply
ratione temporis to the present situation but may nevertheless provide a useful aid to interpretation.
24. To this end, the new Article 512, in particular, should be recalled, since it applies to customs procedures having an economic
impact and thus, as far as we are concerned, also to the customs warehousing regime. The article provides inter alia as follows:
1. Transfer between different places designated in the same authorisation may be undertaken without any customs formalities.
2. Transfer from the office of entry to the holder's or operator's facilities or place of use may be carried out under cover
of the declaration for entry for the arrangements.
3. Transfer to the office of exit with a view to re-exportation may take place under cover of the arrangements. In this case,
the arrangements shall not be discharged until the goods or products declared for re-exportation have actually left the customs
territory of the Community.
II ─ Facts and procedure
25. The main action is the result of a request for repayment of customs duties presented to the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen,
(main customs office for Hamburg-St Annen, which became the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt; hereinafter
the Hauptzollamt or
the HZA) by the company Hamann International GmbH Spedition + Logistik, (hereinafter
Hamann or
the appellant in the main action), the successor in title of ROJO Terminal GmbH (hereinafter
Rojo).
26. It may be seen from the order for reference that from 1993 onwards Rojo held an authorisation relating to the management of
a type D customs warehouse, that is, a private warehouse subject to simplified customs formalities,
(5)
according to which
the warehousekeeper is the same person as the depositor but is not necessarily the owner of the goods, (Article 504 of the implementing regulation).
27. By a document dated 5 March 1996, the Hauptzollamt accused Rojo of removing from the warehouse, for the purposes of their
re-exportation, two lots of goods imported from Canada and subjected to the customs warehousing procedure, without first placing
them under the external transit procedure. The HZA thus imputed to Rojo the payment of the duties and customs taxes relating
to those two lots, amounting to DEM 6 283.30 and DEM 4 488.08, respectively.
28. On 7 March 1997, Hamann requested repayment of these sums from the Hauptzollamt, enclosing the relevant re-exportation documentation
for the two lots in question, including in particular certain Polish documents certifying the payment of customs duties at
the Polish-German border.
29. By a decision of 30 April 1997, the Hauptzollamt refused the request, holding that the goods in question had been removed,
albeit temporarily, from customs supervision. The HZA observed that non-Community goods subject to the customs warehousing
procedure and destined for re-export cannot be transferred from the customs warehouse to the customs office at the point of
exit without first having been placed under the external transit procedure.
30. Hamann appealed against the decision of the HZA to the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg, asserting amongst other things
that the external transit procedure had been opened for the first lot of goods in Padborg, Denmark, and at the German-Polish
border for the second lot of goods. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that there had been removal of the goods from customs
supervision and hence a customs duty had, for the purposes of Article 203(1) of the Code, been incurred.
31. Hamann appealed against this decision to the Bundesfinanzhof, which, having doubts as to the interpretation of the concept
of removal from customs supervision, decided to suspend the proceedings and submit the following question to the Court of
Justice for a preliminary ruling:Is there a removal from customs supervision of re-exported non-Community goods resulting in the incurring of a customs debt
under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 solely by virtue of the fact that the goods intended for re-export
from the customs territory of the Community were not placed under the external transit procedure immediately on removal from
the customs warehouse?
32. In the proceedings thus initiated before the Court, written observations were submitted by the appellant in the main action
and by the Commission. Both parties also participated in the oral hearing of 5 February 2003, at which the Hauptzollamt was
also present.
III ─ Legal Analysis
33. As noted above, the referring court has submitted a single question to the Court asking, essentially, if there is, for the
purposes of Article 203 of the Code,
removal from customs supervision when non-Community goods which are subject to the customs warehousing procedure and are intended for re-export from the customs
territory of the Community are not placed under the external transit procedure immediately on removal from the customs warehouse.
Arguments of the parties
34. Hamann does not dispute the fact that in the present case the obligation, laid down in the provisions which were in force
at the time, to place the goods under the external transit procedure was breached. However, it maintains that that breach
does not, for the purposes of Article 203(1) of the Code, amount to a removal of the goods from the supervision of the customs
authorities, but rather constitutes a breach
which, in practice, had no effect on the correct operation of the procedure within the meaning of Article 204 of the Code and Article 859 of the implementing regulation, read together.
35. The Commission, for its part, submits in the first place that the order of referral does not explain the facts sufficiently,
making legal evaluation rather difficult.
36. In any event, the Commission claims that the behaviour in question should, in principle, be categorised as a removal from
customs supervision for the purposes of Article 203(1) of the Code because the case-law of the Court clearly favours a very
broad interpretation of such a notion, covering any action or omission which inhibits access by the competent customs authority
to the goods under customs supervision.
37. According to the Commission, it thus falls to the referring court to assess whether, in the present case, the competent authority
was in fact able to have access to the goods in question.
38. As a secondary point, the Commission adds that the present case may also be examined with reference to Article 239 of the
Code, even though the national court did not make specific reference to this provision.
39. The Commission considers that the conditions for a proper application of that provision are present in this case, although
it falls in any event to the referring court to determine whether they are in fact satisfied.
Assessment
Introduction
40. I believe, as was also suggested by the Commission, that the legislative provisions governing this case must first be clarified.
41. I am of the opinion that to this end it must first be established whether conduct such as that in question constitutes
removal of goods from customs supervision
(6)
and thus gives rise to a customs debt for the purposes of Article 203(1) of the Code.
42. Should the behaviour not fall to be thus categorised, it will be necessary to evaluate it with reference to Article 204 of
the Code in order to establish whether there has been a breach of the terms and conditions of the applicable customs procedure,
to which the abovementioned provision links the incurring of a customs debt, or whether there has been a
non-performance lacking any effect on the correct functioning of the [customs] procedure in question, in which case Article 204 precludes the incurring of such a debt.
43. In the latter case, it will have to be concluded that the duties in question were not legally owed and the interested party
will thus have a right to repayment under Article 236 of the Code.
44. If, on the other hand, it is concluded that, by virtue of Article 203 or Article 204, a customs debt has arisen and that the
duties under dispute were therefore legally owed, it will then have to be considered whether, in circumstances such as those
of the present case, repayment may be made on the basis of one of the exceptions in Article 239 of the Code.
The notion of removal
45. As has been noted, the Commission is of the opinion that the notion of removal, while not defined by any Community norm, can
easily be inferred from the case-law of the Court. In
Wandel and
Liberexim, the Court stated that
any act or omission the result of which is to prevent, if only for a short time, the competent customs authority from gaining
access to goods under customs supervision and from monitoring them as provided for in Article 37(1) of the Customs Code
(7)
constitutes removal for the purposes of Article 203. The definition of the notion is thus certainly broad enough to include
the circumstances of the case before the referring court.
46. It should be noted, however, that this interpretation was developed by the Court in relation to cases in which the goods subject
to customs supervision were put into circulation on the Community market, and thus into competition with other Community goods,
and seems to derive its
raison d'être from that very fact.
47.
In
Wandel, goods introduced into the Community customs territory and declared for release into free circulation were put on the market
in Germany before the customs inspector had carried out the necessary customs examination and release formalities. Similarly,
in
Liberexim consignments of milk powder from a third country were irregularly imported into the customs territory of the Community and
then sold on in the Netherlands.
(8)
48. On the other hand, in the present case, the goods were introduced only temporarily into the Community customs territory since
they were not intended to be put into circulation on the internal common market and were in fact, after having been declared
for export to customs, re-exported to a third country without ever having entered into competition with goods produced in
the Community. It must be asked therefore whether, in view of those distinguishing elements, the abovementioned case law can
be extended to cover such cases as the one at hand.
49. It seems to me, for the following reasons, that the answer to that must be in the negative.
50. It is well known, and was pointed out by the Bundesfinanzhof (and, in essence, by all the intervening parties), that within
the framework of the common commercial policy the imposition of customs duties on import is designed to protect goods produced
in the Community; it is thus goods imported from third countries which are hit by these duties, on the basis that they are
released into the Community system and therefore enter into competition with goods having a Community origin.
51. In the light of the above, the differences between the various situations under consideration seem clear. In
Wandel and
Liberexim, the violations of customs procedure of which the parties were accused carried the risk of an unauthorised circumventing
of the Community customs tariff in so far as they prevented the customs authorities from inspecting the goods in order to
determine the applicable customs duty before they were put into free circulation. Understandably, therefore, the existence
of such a risk required a strict interpretation of the scope of the notion of removal.
52. In the present case, however, the breach of the provisions relating to the transfer of goods from the customs warehouse to
the customs office of exit did not lead, and could not have led, to unauthorised entry of the goods onto the Community market.
This must therefore be considered to be a less serious offence from the point of view of its consequences and, as such, permits
of a more
flexible interpretation of the notion of removal.
53. Only in the other cases mentioned is there strictly speaking a violation of the applicable customs regime, such as to constitute
removal of the goods from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203 of the Code, because there is a risk of unlawful
circumvention of the Community customs tariff only in those cases where it is impossible for the competent customs authority
to gain access to the goods under customs supervision and to monitor them as provided for in Article 37(1) of the Customs
Code. Conversely, in cases such as this one, one can only speak, at most, of procedural irregularities within the meaning
of Article 204 of the Code.
54. Likewise, it does not appear to me that such an interpretation of the notion of removal would be in contradiction with that
already accepted by the Court in the cases mentioned above; rather, it appears to me that such an interpretation merely clarifies
that of the Court by emphasising the
ratio legis of Article 203.
55. Still other arguments support this thesis. Above all, it appears to be in line with a systematic interpretation of the Customs
Code and, in particular, a combined reading of Articles 203 and 204.
56. As mentioned above, Article 204 governs the non-performance of obligations linked to the placing of goods under a particular
customs procedure, or of the conditions to which that is subject, and provides that such non-performance will not result in
the incurring of a customs debt if
they have not had, in practice, any effect on the proper functioning ... of the customs procedure in question.
57. As the Commission pointed out, it is true that the rule laid down in Article 204 appears to be a provision of residual application,
given that it applies
in cases other than those under Article 203. Nevertheless, it seems to me, as it does to Hamann, that an overly narrow interpretation of the notion of removal under
Article 203 would unduly restrict the scope of Article 204, depriving it essentially of any useful effect.
58. That becomes especially apparent if that article is read together with the relevant implementing rules. According to Article
859 of the implementing regulation, Article 204 applies, inter alia, precisely in the situation here, namely that in which
goods placed under a particular customs procedure leave the customs territory of the Community without the necessary formalities
having been properly completed (Article 859(6)). Thus it seems that Hamann is correct in observing that, were such a violation
to be categorised as
removal from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203, Article 204, in combination with Article 859(6), would be essentially deprived of normative
effect.
59. Finally, I would add that the recent simplification and rationalisation of the rules governing customs procedures having an
economic impact, and in particular the introduction in the implementing regulation of the new Article 512, provides indirect
support for that approach. As also noted by Hamann, that amendment abrogates the very formality the non-observance of which
is at the root of the dispute between Rojo and the Hauptzollamt, and now enables the transfer of goods to the customs office
of exit with a view to their re-exportation out of the Community to be brought within the scope of the customs warehousing
procedure without the need for the goods to be placed under the external transit procedure.
60. If that amendment is assumed to have come at a time when the legislative context remained unaltered, I believe that it justifies
the conclusion that the formalities in question were not indispensable to ensuring customs supervision of the goods, thereby
allowing one to at least doubt that their omission could have led, under the previous procedure, to any real violation of
the rules on customs supervision rather than a simple procedural irregularity.
61. The observations set out above lead me to conclude that a violation of the customs rules such as the one in the present case
does not amount to
removal from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203, but rather to a failure to comply with Article 204. More specifically, it seems to me
that this is a case of
non-performance devoid of any consequences for the proper functioning of the procedure of customs warehousing, within the meaning of Article 204 of the Code and Article 859 of the implementing regulation, provided
that there has not been obvious negligence and that the necessary formalities were subsequently completed in order to regularise
the situation of the goods. Under Article 860 of the implementing regulation it will fall to the interested party to prove
that in the case at hand these two conditions are satisfied.
62. I am therefore of the opinion that the fact that non-Community goods ─ temporarily brought into the customs territory of the
Community, placed under the customs warehousing procedure with a view to their re-export, declared to the customs authorities
for re-export and subsequently in fact re-exported out of the customs territory of the Community ─ were not placed under the
external transit procedure immediately on their removal from the warehouse for transfer to the customs office of exit does
not constitute
removal from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203 of the Community Customs Code, and therefore does not lead to the incurring of a customs
debt.
63. Nor does such a situation lead to the incurring of a customs debt under Article 204 of the Code, provided always that it is
demonstrated, in accordance with Article 859 of the implementing regulation, that there has not been obvious negligence on
the part of the person concerned and that all the formalities necessary to regularise the situation of the goods are subsequently
carried out.
64. It falls to the national court to verify whether, in the given case, it has been proven that the conditions of Article 859
have been fulfilled.
Repayment within the meaning of Article 239 of the Customs Code
65. As already noted above, should it be held that the conditions in Article 859 of the implementing regulation have not been
fulfilled, it will also be necessary to determine whether, in light of the circumstances of the particular case, any of the
exceptions laid down in Article 239 of the Customs Code and in the related provisions in the implementing regulation may apply
so as to permit repayment of a legally owed duty.
66. In particular, according to Community case-law, it will first be necessary to determine
whether
an application for repayment ... is based on grounds corresponding to one of the circumstances referred to in Articles 900 to 904 of the implementing regulation.
(9)
Where none of the situations listed in that provision exist, it will be necessary, again according to the case-law of the
Court, to determine
whether there is any evidence of the existence of a special situation within the meaning of Article 905(1) of the regulation,
which does not entail any deception or manifest negligence on the part of the person concerned.
(10)
67. The Court has also stated that such a
special situation will arise when
having regard to the objective of fairness underlying Article 239 of the Customs Code, factors liable to place the applicant
in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business are found to exist.
(11)
68. As regards the present case, I agree with the Commission that the complexity of the provisions applicable to the facts in
question and the fact that the experience of the interested parties is limited to the management of a customs warehouse of
type D, subject to relatively simplified rules, tend to justify the conclusion that we are in the presence of one of those
special situations,
which does not entail any deception or manifest negligence on the part of the person concerned and in relation to which one may therefore legitimately apply Article 239 and thus permit, according to equitable principles,
a repayment of the duty which was none the less legally owed.
69. It falls to the national court to determine whether these conditions have been fulfilled in the present case.
IV ─ Conclusion
70. In the light of the observations laid out above, I would propose that the Court reply to the Bundesfinanzhof as follows: The fact that non-Community goods ─ temporarily brought into the customs territory of the Community, placed under the customs
warehousing procedure with a view to their re-export, declared to the customs authorities for re-export and subsequently in
fact re-exported out of the customs territory of the Community ─ were not placed under the external transit procedure immediately
on their removal from the warehouse for transfer to the customs office of exit does not constitute
removal from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203 of the Community Customs Code, and therefore does not lead to the incurring of a customs
debt.Nor does such a situation lead to the incurring of a customs debt under Article 204 of the Code, provided always that it is
demonstrated, in accordance with Article 859 of the implementing regulation, that there has not been obvious negligence on
the part of the person concerned and that all the formalities necessary to regularise the situation of the goods are subsequently
carried out.It falls to the national court to verify whether, in the given case, it has been proven that the conditions of Article 859
have been fulfilled.Should the national court hold that those conditions have not been fulfilled, it will also be required to determine whether,
in the light of the circumstances of the particular case, any of the exceptions laid down in Article 239 of the Customs Code
and in the related provisions in the implementing regulation may apply so as to permit repayment of a legally owed duty.
- 1 –
- Original language: Italian.
- 2 –
- OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
- 3 –
- Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
- 4 –
- Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2001 L 141, p.
1).
- 5 –
- See, in particular, Articles 253 and 278(3)(c) of the implementing regulation.
- 6 –
- Note that the term
controllo used in the Italian language version of Article 203 appears not to correspond exactly to the other language versions of the
Customs Code, which refer to customs
supervision,
vigilanza (
surveillance,
Überwachung,
vigilancia).
- 7 –
- Case C-66/99
Wandel [2001] ECR I-873, paragraph 47, and Case C-371/99
Liberexim [2002] ECR I-6227, paragraph 55.
- 8 –
- See
Wandel, paragraphs 27 to 29, and
Liberexim, paragraphs 16 to 21.
- 9 –
- Case C-48/98
Söhl & Söhlke [1999] ECR I-7877, paragraph 88.
- 10 –
- Case C-86/97
Trans-Ex-Import [1999] ECR I-1041, paragraph 19, and
Söhl & Söhlke, paragraph 91.
- 11 –
- Case C-253/99
Bacardi [2001] ECR I-6493, paragraphs 56 and 59. See also
Trans-Ex-Import, paragraph 22.
