C-275/85
ECLI:EU:C:1986:433
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61985CC0275
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR DARMON —CASE 275/85
OPINION OF M R ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered o n 18 N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 6 *
Mr President, goods forming the subject of the entry\ Members of the Court, Article 4 of the first Council directive deals with a special arrangement for the deferred payment of customs duties 'for goods for 1. The outcome of this action seeking a which removal has been authorized during a declaration that a Member State has failed given period . . . '. to fulfil its Treaty obligations depends on the reply which the Court gives to the following question: Should the disputed In substance, the defendant State contends provision of Italian legislation, the incom- that the above provision patibility of which with Article 19 of Commission Directive 8 2 / 5 7 / E E C of 17 (a) authorizes the release of goods in December 1981 laying down certain provisions for implementing Council stages, and Directive 79/695/EEC (the latter being hereinafter referred to as 'the second (b) could not have been repealed by a Council directive') is denied by no one, provision introduced by the Commission none the less be regarded as being in even if adopted pursuant to a later conformity with Community law by virtue Council directive, as it could not, in that of Article 4 of the earlier Council directive, regard, have any basis in that directive. Directive 78/453/EEC ('the first Council directive') ? 3. The solution to the problem thus posed must be sought in the general legislative 2. The release for free circulation within the scheme created by the three directives. Community of goods coming from a non-member country is subject to their release by the customs authorities in the The second Council directive, and the Member State of importation. Once the Commission directive implementing it, are goods are released the importer is auth- concerned with 'the harmonization of orized to remove them. procedures for the release of goods for free circulation'. The first Council directive relates specifically to the harmonization of In the case of final importation into Italy, domestic measures governing the 'deferred the second paragraph of Article 80 of the payment' of the various duties to be Testo Unico delle Disposizioni Legislative discharged on the importation or in Materia Doganale [Consolidated Text of exportation of goods from non-member Customs Legislation] allows goods which countries. Between them, therefore, the have been declared on a single entry form three directives form two separate bodies of to be released in stages. The abovemen- rules which nevertheless need to be seen as tioned Article 19, on the other hand, interconnected; the detailed rules for the requires in such cases that the release be payment of customs duties, which are also effected 'on a single occasion for all the covered by the first Council directive, must
* Translated from the French.
COMMISSION v ITALY
fit into the broader scheme governing the Moreover, Article 19 must be viewed as release of goods for free circulation, of deriving from the rationale of the second which they regulate only one aspect. In Council directive as outlined in the other words, the first Council directive must preamble thereto, which emphasizes the be applied — and thus interpreted — in the 'specifically Community character' of the light of the scheme devised by the two later release of goods for free circulation and the directives. consequent need to overcome, through harmonization, the disparities in national Difficulties might have arisen had the first rules which may give rise inter alia to Council directive made express provision, as 'distortions of treatment for Community the Italian Republic claims, for the release importers, depending on the Member State in stages of goods declared on a single entry in which the customs clearance formalities form. Such is not the case. In that regard are carried o u t . . . '. The preamble goes on Article 4 is perfectly neutral, because its to state that these common rules · must, legislative scope is limited to the specifically, 'dispense with all unnecessary requirement that there should be 'one single formalities' (fifth, seventh and tenth entry in the accounts' for the duties charged recitals). on the goods released. In the absence of Community rules harmonizing in a general way the procedures for the release of goods for free circulation, Article 4 could therefore still apply in the circumstances The requirement that the release of goods envisaged by the second paragraph of shall be a single event is par excellence Article 80 of the Consolidated Text. Since a measure simplifying administrative those rules entered into force, however, that procedures, adopted in order to put an end can no longer be the case, in view of the to the distortions in treatment between rule contained in Article 19; there is not Community importers. More than the effect even any need to ascertain whether that rule on the public finances of the Community, it has any particular basis in the second is equality of treatment which, it seems to Council directive. me, is the ratio legis of Article 19.
4. T h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s application should therefore be upheld and the Italian Republic should be o r d e r e d t o p a y the costs.