About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2014-8 Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance 1 (2014)

handle is hein.intyb/rcbjcofi0361 and id is 1 raw text is: VRw Reports of Cases Case C-437/13 Unitrading Ltd v Staatssecretaris van Financien (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Recovery of import duties - Origin of goods - Means of proof - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Procedural autonomy of the Member States) Summary - Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 23 October 2014 EU law - Principles - Right to effective judicial protection - Recovery of import duties - Proof of the origin of imported goods resting on the results of examinations carried out by a third party which refuses to disclose further information - Non-verification of the conclusions by the customs authorities - Lawfulness - Assessment by the national court - Conditions (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding proof of origin of imported goods adduced by the customs authorities on the basis of national procedural rules resting on the results of an examination carried out by a third party, with regard to which that third party refuses to disclose further information either to the customs authorities or to the customs declarant, as a result of which it is made difficult or impossible to verify or disprove the correctness of the conclusions reached, provided that the principles of effectiveness and equivalence are upheld. Since the relevance of evidence not entirely verifiable by all the parties to the proceedings or by the court hearing the case can validly be challenged by the party concerned, in particular by arguing that that evidence can constitute only indirect proof of the facts alleged and by putting forward other evidence to support his assertions, the right of that person to effective judicial protection, referred to in Article 47 of the Charter, has not, in principle, been infringed. Since Article 245 of the Customs Code provides, in that context, that the provisions for the implementation of the appeals procedure provided for in Article 243 of that code are to be determined by the Member States, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing those actions, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render in practice impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness). In order to ensure compliance with the principle of effectiveness, if the national court finds that the fact of requiring the person liable for the customs debt to prove the place of origin of the goods declared, in that the onus is on him to refute the relevance of indirect evidence used by the customs authorities, is likely to make ECLI:EU:C:2014:2318 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most