[x] v. the Inspector of the Tax Authorities/Customs, Groningen office, Provisional relief judge District Court North Holland, 17 April 2023, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2023:4754

Customs. Requests for preliminary injunction for release of “crimping tools”. These have not been released due to the granting of a request for enforcement from the patent holder on the basis of an alleged infringement of patent law under the Anti-Piracy Regulation.

“At the hearing, the applicants stated that they deliberately chose not to follow the special release procedure of Article 24 of the APR. They fear that the patent holder will demand such a high security that there is no realistic possibility of releasing the goods via Article 24 APR. In addition, they expect that the measures will be repeated, namely with each subsequent shipment of [# 2].

“In the opinion of the provisional relief judge, Article 24 of the APR offers a procedure in which the interests of the holder/owner of the goods, the interests of the patent holder, and the interests of the European Union with regard to the fulfillment of customs formalities (including the levying of customs duties) have each been given attention. This is a special provision regulated at European level to bring about the release of goods when a patent holder claims that a patent has been infringed and goods are not released by customs on that basis. Special conditions apply to early release. In the opinion of the preliminary relief judge, there is no scope for the applicants to thwart this European law regulation of Article 24 of the APR by invoking national law (Article 8:81 of the Awb [General Administrative Law Act]).”

A copy of the decision (in Dutch) can be read here.