CJ, 30-04-2025, nr. C-330/24

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 116(7) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1; ‘the Union Customs Code’).

The request has been made in proceedings between Celní jednatelství Zelinka s. r. o. and the Generální ředitelství cel (General Directorate of Customs, Czech Republic) concerning a decision reinstating a customs debt.

Recital 26 of the Union Customs Code states as follows:

Under Article 28(1) of that code:

Article 103(1) of that code provides:

Article 116 of the same code provides:

Celní jednatelství Zelinka imports electronic goods into the European Union (‘the goods at issue’). In its customs declaration, it had initially classified the goods at issue under heading 8521 90 00 90 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1; ‘the CN’). That heading corresponds to a rate of customs duty of 8.7%. On the basis of that declaration, the Celní úřad pro hlavní město Prahu (Customs Authority for the City of Prague, Czech Republic; ‘the Prague customs authority’) imposed on Celní jednatelství Zelinka customs duties amounting to 1 541 018 Czech koruny (CZK) (approximately EUR 60 000).

Celní jednatelství Zelinka then applied to the Prague customs authority for reclassification of the goods at issue and for repayment of the customs duties paid. To that end, it relied on binding tariff information issued to another economic operator by the Celní úřad pro Olomoucký kraj (Customs Authority for the Olomouc Region, Czech Republic), classifying identical goods under heading 8517 62 00 00 of the CN, to which a rate of customs duty of 0% corresponds. The Prague customs authority granted that application.

On 8 June 2021, the Celní úřad pro Jihomoravský kraj (Customs Authority for the Southern Moravia Region, Czech Republic) initiated an inspection of Celní jednatelství Zelinka to verify the tariff classification of the goods at issue. Following that inspection, it was concluded that those goods should have been classified under heading 8521 90 00 90 of the CN, as they had initially been and as now expressly follows from the CN, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/532 of 22 March 2021 (OJ 2021 L 106, p. 55).

On 17 March 2022, the Prague customs authority decided, pursuant to Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code, to issue to Celní jednatelství Zelinka an adjusted assessment in the amount of CZK 1 541 018 (approximately EUR 60 000), reinstating the customs debt. It explained that decision by stating that the customs duties had been repaid due to an error on the part of the customs authority, which had classified the goods at issue under an incorrect tariff heading.

Since the appeal against that decision was dismissed by the General Directorate of Customs, Celní jednatelství Zelinka brought an action before the Městský soud v Praze (Prague City Court, Czech Republic), which was also dismissed.

Celní jednatelství Zelinka brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment dismissing the action, before the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic), the referring court. In support of that appeal, it submitted that, in the Czech-language version, Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code refers only to situations in which customs duties have been repaid due to an unintentional error on the part of the customs authority. It therefore concerns situations resulting from an unintentional act of that authority, and not situations in which that authority deliberately made a tariff classification and that classification subsequently proved to be incorrect.

The referring court considers that the resolution of the dispute before it requires an interpretation of the expression ‘in error’ in Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code.

In those circumstances, the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as covering only situations in which the customs duties were repaid following an unintentional error on the part of the customs authorities or whether it also covers situations in which those authorities deliberately made a tariff classification and that classification subsequently proved to be incorrect.

As a preliminary point, it must be noted that the Union Customs Code does not contain a definition of the expression ‘in error’ or that of ‘granted in error’.

As regards the wording of the provision at issue, the referring court notes that it may be inferred from certain language versions of that provision that the reinstatement of the customs debt is subject to the existence of an act committed by the customs authority in error but unintentionally. That is the case with regard to the Czech-language version of that provision, in which the term ‘omylem’ is used, and in the Polish- and Slovak-language versions, in which the terms ‘omyłkowo’ and‘omylom’ are used, respectively.

By contrast, it should be noted that, in other language versions of Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code, terms are used which have a broader meaning and do not refer solely to an unintentional act on the part of the customs authorities. Thus, by way of example, in the Spanish-, German-, English-, French-, Italian-, Dutch-, Portuguese- and Swedish-language versions, the terms used, respectively, are ‘erróneamente’, ‘zu Unrecht’, ‘error’, ‘à tort’, ‘errore’, ‘ten onrechte’, ‘erradamente’ and ‘felaktigt’.

In that regard, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions. Provisions of EU law must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all languages of the European Union. Where there is a divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgments of 27 October 1977, Boucherau, 30/77, EU:C:1977:172, paragraph 14; of 9 July 2020, Banca Transilvania, C-81/19, EU:C:2020:532, paragraph 33; and of 21 December 2021, Trapeza Peiraios, C-243/20, EU:C:2021:1045, paragraph 32).

As regards the general scheme of the rules of which Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code forms part, it must be noted that that provision appears in Section 3, on ‘Repayment and remission’, of Chapter 3, entitled ‘Recovery, payment, repayment and remission of the amount of import or export duty’, which is in Title III of that code, entitled ‘Customs debt and guarantees’. Article 116(7) therefore forms part, as the European Commission submitted in its written observations, of a series of provisions relating to the remission and repayment of a customs debt, which are themselves part of a broader set of provisions of that code relating to the recovery of import or export duties.

Since, in accordance with Article 124(1)(c) of the Union Customs Code, the remission of duty extinguishes the customs debt, it must be interpreted strictly. That article addresses the need to protect the European Union's own resources (judgment of 17 February 2011, Berel and Others, C-78/10, EU:C:2011:93, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

Consequently, the first subparagraph of Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code, according to which, where the customs authorities have granted repayment or remission in error, the original customs debt is to be reinstated, must, for its part, be interpreted broadly.

As regards the purpose of the rules of which the provision in question forms part, it must be noted that it is in the interests of both economic operators and customs authorities that decisions relating to a customs debt are materially correct, provided that the requirements arising from the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations are observed. The Union Customs Code seeks, as is apparent from recital 26 thereof, to ensure the correct application of customs duties (see, by analogy, judgments of 27 February 2014, Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia, C-571/12, EU:C:2014:102, paragraph 32, and of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C-427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraph 26).

Thus, in Title I of the Union Customs Code, concerning the general provisions therein, Article 28(1)(a) provides that a favourable decision is to be revoked or amended where one or more of the conditions for taking that decision were not or are no longer fulfilled. In the light of that provision, the Court has previously held, in relation to binding tariff information, that, where an interpretation by the customs authorities of the legal provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned appears to be incorrect, those authorities are entitled to revoke their decision by amending the tariff classification. That applies both following an error of assessment and evolution in the thinking in relation to tariff classification (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 January 2004, Timmermans Transport and Hoogenboom Production, C-133/02 and C-134/02, EU:C:2004:43, paragraphs 24 and 25).

Those considerations support an interpretation of Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code to the effect that it is possible for the customs authorities to reinstate the original customs debt in a case where they initially granted repayment of that debt on the basis of a tariff classification of the goods which subsequently proved to be incorrect.

Such an interpretation is also supported by the case-law relating to Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), which was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (OJ 2008 L 145, p. 1), which, in turn, was replaced by the Union Customs Code. Under that provision, where a revision of the customs declaration or a post-clearance examination by the customs authorities revealed that the duties had been calculated on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, those authorities were to take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, taking account of the new information available to them. In that regard, the Court held that that provision had to be interpreted as allowing, inter alia, the customs authorities to revise or conduct a post-clearance examination of a customs declaration and to draw the consequences thereof by fixing a new customs debt. In that context, the Court took into account the specific logic underlying that provision, which seeks to bring the customs procedure into line with the actual situation by correcting material errors or omissions as well as errors of interpretation of the applicable law (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 July 2012, Südzucker and Others, C-608/10, C-10/11 and C-23/11, EU:C:2012:444, paragraph 47, and of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C-427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraphs 22 to 28). Since Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code is based on the same logic, it must, therefore, allow the customs authorities to reinstate the original customs debt where it appears that the repayment of that debt was made on the basis of an incorrect tariff classification.

In its written observations, Celní jednatelství Zelinka submits that observance of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations should, however, lead to Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code being interpreted as meaning that the customs debt may be reinstated only where the customs duties have been repaid following an unintentional error committed by the customs authorities.

In that regard, it is true that the possibility for the customs authorities to take the measures necessary to regularise a situation is subject to compliance with the requirements deriving from those principles (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C-427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraph 29). The fact remains that an interpretation of that provision to the effect that its scope is not limited to unintentional errors on the part of the customs authorities does not appear, as such, to be incompatible with those requirements.

As regards the principle of legal certainty, it must be noted that the possibility of reinstating the original customs debt is subject to the condition that that debt is not time-barred under Article 103 of the Union Customs Code. According to that latter provision, the limitation period, as a general rule, expires after a period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred.

It is apparent from the case-law of the Court that laying down reasonable time limits for bringing proceedings serves the interests of legal certainty which protects both the individual and the authorities concerned; such time limits are not liable to make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law. Accordingly, during the limitation period, the customs authorities must be able to amend the customs debt (see, by analogy, judgment of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C-427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraphs 32 and 37).

As regards the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, it should be noted that, before the expiry of the limitation period, a taxable person must, as an economic operator, accept the risk of the customs authorities revising their decision on the customs debt in the light of new information in their possession (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C-427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraphs 41 and 42).

In light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 116(7) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that it covers not only situations in which the customs duties were repaid following an unintentional error on the part of the customs authorities, but also situations in which those authorities deliberately made a tariff classification and that classification subsequently proved to be incorrect.

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 116(7) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code

must be interpreted as meaning that it covers not only situations in which the customs duties were repaid following an unintentional error on the part of the customs authorities, but also situations in which those authorities deliberately made a tariff classification and that classification subsequently proved to be incorrect.

[Signatures]