You are on page 1of 1

C 82/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 2.4.


Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Nordspedizio- 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79, submitting that they
nieri di Danielis Livio & C. in liquidation against the judg- could not be liable for the customs duties because in this case
ment delivered on 14 December 2004 by the Fifth there are ‘special circumstances’ exempting Nordspedizionieri
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European from the obligation to pay those duties. They claim that they
Communities in Case T-332/02 between Nordspedizionieri were entitled to rely on the documents (commercial and trans-
and Others and the Commission of the European Commu- port) presented to them by the driver of the lorry at the time of
nities the customs declaration, from which it appeared that the loads
were of cardboard boxes.

(Case C-62/05 P)

The special situation permitting remission arises from the fact

(2005/C 82/41) that the customs agent is unable to inspect the contents of
lorries which ‘legitimately’ cross the border between Italy and
Yugoslavia and moreover that, in the present case, the docu-
(Language of the case: Italian) mentation appeared to be in order so that the loads cleared
customs under the ‘fast track’ customs procedure.

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December

2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the The applicants further point to the fulfilment in the present
European Communities in Case T-332/02 between Nordspedi- case of the other requirement of Article 13 that there be no
zionieri and Others and the Commission of the European ‘negligence’ or ‘deception’, in that the T1 declaration was drawn
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the up on the basis of the information given in the commercial
European Communities on 11 February 2005 by Nordspedizio- and transport documentation.
nieri and Others, represented by G. Leone, lawyer.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Lastly, in the application to the Court of First Instance, the
1 – Annul the contested decision of the Commission of the appellants pleaded in the alternative the application of Article
European Communities of 28 June 2002 (file REM 1401), 8(1)(b) of Regulation EEC No 2144/87 (2), which excludes the
notified on 2 September 2002, by which it found the payment of customs duties on those goods which were seized
remission of import duties to be unjustified, and declare and then confiscated.
on the contrary that in the present case the remission is
justified pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No
1430/79 (1) on the basis of special circumstances in which
no negligence or deception may be attributed to the
By judgment of 14 December 2004, the Fifth Chamber of the
appellants; Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety,
holding that there were no ‘special circumstances’, and there-
2 – Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance fore leaving aside the question whether or not in the present
and on appeal. case there was no ‘negligence or deception’.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The appeal restates the same arguments advanced at first
instance, including the fact that in the present case there
appears to have been an infringement of the 1965 Belgrade
The appellants, who are customs agents, issued in October Agreement on mutual administrative assistance between Italy
1992 two T1 Community transit declarations that loads origin- and Yugoslavia, which obliges the Yugoslav customs authorities
ating in Yugoslavia and destined for Spain contained cardboard to notify the Italian customs authorities of the transit of fiscally
boxes. The Italian customs authorities requested the appellants sensitive goods (such as cigarettes) with reference to the two
to pay the customs duties chargeable on the two loads in ques- lorries in question; a third lorry was stopped and the goods
tion declaring that the loads did not contain boxes but cigar- seized thanks to the warning received (albeit late) by the Italian
ettes. customs from their Yugoslav counterparts.

The appellants brought legal proceedings, which they lost, and

(1) OJ 1979 L 175 of 12.07.1979, p. 1.
then applied to the Commission for remission of the customs
(2) OJ 1987 L 201 of 22.07.1987, p. 15.
duties, which it refused, holding that the appellants did not
satisfy the prescribed requirements.

The appellants therefore brought an action before the Court of

First Instance of the European Communities based on Article