This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CB0083
Case C-83/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Customs Code — Retrospective export declaration — Concept of ‘sufficient evidence’ — Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient)
Case C-83/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Customs Code — Retrospective export declaration — Concept of ‘sufficient evidence’ — Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient)
Case C-83/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Customs Code — Retrospective export declaration — Concept of ‘sufficient evidence’ — Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient)
IO C 168, 29.5.2017, p. 17–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.5.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 168/17 |
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
(Case C-83/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Customs Code - Retrospective export declaration - Concept of ‘sufficient evidence’ - Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient))
(2017/C 168/21)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant:‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD
Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
The combined provisions of Article 161(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Article 788 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 430/2010 of 20 May 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a seller established in the customs territory of the European Union is considered to be an exporter, within the meaning of the former provision, in the event that, following the conclusion of a contract for the sale of the goods in question, the ownership of those goods is transferred to a purchaser established outside that customs territory. |
|
2. |
Subparagraph 3(b) of Article 795(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the Member States are entitled to require supporting documents in addition to a contract for the sale of a yacht to a person established in another Member State and removal of that yacht from the shipping registers of the Member State concerned, on condition that such a requirement complies with the principle of proportionality. |
|
3. |
Article 795 of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority called upon to accept a retrospective export declaration within the meaning of that provision is not bound, under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, by the assessment, by a customs authority, as to whether the evidence under Article 796da(4) of the regulation is sufficient. |