Eksempler på brug af Offence or irregularity på Engelsk og deres oversættelser til Dansk
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
By laying down provisions in the event of an offence or irregularity;
Where it is not possible to determine in which territory the offence or irregularity was committed, such offence or irregularity shall be deemed to have been committed in the Member State where it was noted.
That presumption can be rebutted in favour of the jurisdiction of another Member State only if it is established that the first offence or irregularity was actually committed in the territory of that State.
When, in the course of movement, an offence or irregularity has been detected without it being possible to determine where it was committed, it shall be deemed to have been committed in the Member State where it was detected.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to deal with any offence or irregularity and to impose effective penalties.';
When an offence or irregularity under the TIR Convention gives rise to a customs debt in the Community, the provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other charges mentioned in Article 91(1)(a) of the Code.
Without prejudice to Article 215 of the Code,where the consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, such offence or irregularity shall be deemed to have been committed.
Where, in the absence of such proof, such offence or irregularity is deemed to have been committed in the Member State of departureor in the Member State of entry, duties and other taxes will be charged by that Member State in accordance with its laws, regulations and administrative provisions.
The guarantee covering the transit operation shall not be released until the end of the aforementioned three-year period or until the duties andother charges applicable in the Member State where the said offence or irregularity was actually committed have been paid.
If that is the case,the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of the Customs Code.
Unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2), to be determined, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
In order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the national court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not beenpresented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred.
Unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2), to be determined, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
The coordinating office of the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed shall take over the recovery proceedings and where necessary collect from the guaranteeing association with which it is connected the amount of duties and other charges due at the rates in force in the Member State where this office is situated.
The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall indicate, in particular, the timelimit by which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed must be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
Where no such proof is furnished and the said offence or irregularity is thus deemed to have been committed in the Member State in which it was detected, the duties and other charges relating to the goods concerned shall be levied by that Member State in accordance with Community or national provisions.
Where a number of offences or irregularities have occurred in various Member States, the Member State having jurisdiction to recover the customs duties is the State in which the first offence or irregularity was committed see, by analogy, Liberexim, paragraph 57.
Where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination andthe place where the offence or irregularity occurred cannot be established, the office of departure shall notify the principal of this fact as soon as possible and in any case before the end of the 11th month following the date of registration of the Community transit declaration.
Where the amount of the duties and other charges originally levied and returned by the Member State which had recovered them is smaller than that of the duties andother charges due in the Member State where the offence or irregularity was actually committed, that Member State shall levy the difference in accordance with Community or national provisions.
If that is the case,the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall indicate, in particular, the time limit by which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed must be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
Where it is not possible to determine in which territory the offence or irregularity was committed, such offence or irregularity shall be deemed to have been committed in the Member State where it was detected unless, within the period laid down in Article 455(1), proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
The answer to the third question must therefore be that, in order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not beenpresented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred.
In the case of an offence or irregularity committed in the course ofor in connection with a temporary import operation under cover of an ATA carnet,'the provisions in Articles 454 and 455 and Articles 458 to 461 relating to use of the ATA carnet'[RI] as a transit document shall apply mutatis mutandis to recovery of the import duties payable.
Where it is found that, in the course of or in connection with a transit operation carried out under cover of an ATA carnet, an offence or irregularity has been committed in a particular Member State, the recovery of duties and other charges which may be payable shall be effected by that Member State in accordance with Community or national provisions, without prejudice to the institution of criminal proceedings.
If the Member State where the said offence or irregularity was actually committed is subsequently determined, the duties and other charges(apart from those levied, pursuant to the second subparagraph, as own resources of the Community) to which the goods are liable in that Member State shall be returned to it by the Member State which had originally recovered them.
If that is the case,the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of Council Regulation(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.
When it is found that,in the course of a Community transit opera tion, an offence or irregularity has been committed in a particular Member State, the recovery of duties or other charges which may be chargeable shall be effected by that Member State in accordance with its provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action, without prejudice to the institution of criminal proceedings.
Where no such proof is furnished and the said offence or irregularity is thus deemed to have been committed in the Member State of departureor in the Member State of entry as referred to in the first paragraph, second indent, the duties and other charges relating to the goods concerned shall be levied by that Member State in accordance with Community or national provisions.
It held that when as a result of an offence or irregularity committed in the course of a Community transit operation the duties or other charges which are chargeable are not collected,recovery is to be effected by the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed, even if the offence or irregu larity does not give rise to a customs debt.