EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.
European Court of Justice
Overview:
- ECJ ruling (Case C-351/24, C/C Vámügynöki Kft) regarding the interpretation of Article 119(3) UCC in addressing manifest errors in movement certificates and the implications for preferential treatment in customs procedures
- ECJ ruling (Case C-137/23, Alsen) regarding the interpretation of excise duty exemptions for gas oil used as fuel for navigation on EU inland waterways and the implications of fiscal marking requirements under EU law
ECJ ruling (Case C-351/24, C/C Vámügynöki Kft) regarding the interpretation of Article 119(3) UCC in addressing manifest errors in movement certificates and the implications for preferential treatment in customs procedures
Customs – ECJ ruling in Case C-351/24 (C/C Vámügynöki Kft) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of goods – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Article 119(3) – Error made when issuing movement certificates – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin – Appendix I – Article 32 – Administrative cooperation – Verification of proofs of origin.
The ECJ rules that:
- The first subparagraph of Article 119(3) UCC, read in conjunction with Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin, approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2013/94/EU of 26 March 2012, must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which, where the movement certificate issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union is vitiated by a manifest error of law relating to the possibility for those goods to benefit from preferential treatment under that convention, the customs authorities of the importing contracting party may legitimately establish that error without initiating the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of the Regional Convention.
ECJ ruling (Case C-137/23, Alsen) regarding the interpretation of excise duty exemptions for gas oil used as fuel for navigation on EU inland waterways and the implications of fiscal marking requirements under EU law
Excise – ECJ ruling in Case C-137/23 (Alsen) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Excise duties – Directive 2003/96/EC – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Exemption of energy products used as fuel – Article 14(1)(c) – Navigation within EU waters – Article 15(1)(f) – Navigation on inland waterways – Directive 95/60/EC – Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene – Gas oil, to which fiscal marking has not been applied in accordance with EU law, intended for use for the propulsion of a vessel – Refusal to apply the exemption from payment of excise duty – Principle of proportionality.
The ECJ rules that:
- Article 15(1)(f) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC as amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Council Directive 95/60/EC, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the benefit of the exemption from excise duty for gas oil supplied for use as fuel for navigation for commercial purposes on EU inland waterways is refused on the ground that fiscal marking has not been applied to that gas oil in accordance with the requirements of EU law, even though, first, it is established that that gas oil is used for such a purpose and, second, there is no evidence capable of giving rise to suspicions of tax evasion, avoidance or abuse.