ECLI:EU:T:2026:345

Full text

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

13 May 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union – Union Customs Code – Right of appeal – Article 44(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Decision relating to binding tariff information – Judicial remedy – Correction – Retroactive effect )

In Case T‑150/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court, Austria), made by decision of 30 January 2025, received at the Court on 21 February 2025, in the proceedings

Zollamt Österreich

G GmbH,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of M. Sampol Pucurull (Rapporteur), President, T. Pynnä, J. Laitenberger, M. Stancu and W. Valasidis, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares,

Registrar: P. Cullen, Administrator,

having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 7 March 2025, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,

having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 50b of that statute,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 10 December 2025,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– G GmbH, by W. Gappmayer, Rechtsanwalt,

– the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent, and by F. Meloncelli, avvocato dello Stato,

– the European Commission, by A. Demeneix and B. Eggers, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 21 January 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 33, 34, 44 and 45 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’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between G GmbH and the Zollamt Österreich (Customs Office, Austria; ‘the Customs Office’) concerning the tariff classification of single-use tourniquets by means of a decision relating to binding tariff information (‘BTI’).

Legal framework

European Union law

3 Recitals 26 and 27 of the Union Customs Code state:

‘(26) In order to secure a balance between, on the one hand, the need for customs authorities to ensure the correct application of the customs legislation and, on the other, the right of economic operators to be treated fairly, the customs authorities should be granted extensive powers of control and economic operators a right of appeal.

(27) In accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is necessary, in addition to the right of appeal against any decision taken by the customs authorities, to provide for the right of every person to be heard before any decision is taken which would adversely affect him or her. …’

4 Section 3 of Chapter 2 of Title I of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Decisions relating to the application of the customs legislation’, comprises Articles 22 to 37.

5 Article 33 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Decisions relating to [BTI]’, provides in paragraph 1:

‘The customs authorities shall, upon application, take decisions relating to [BTI] …

…’

6 Article 34 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Management of decisions relating to [BTI]’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 3 to 6:

‘1. A BTI decision shall cease to be valid before the end of the period referred to in Article 33(3) where it no longer conforms to the law, as a result of either of the following:

(a) the adoption of an amendment to the nomenclatures referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 56(2);

(b) the adoption of measures referred to in Article 57(4);

with effect from the date of application of such amendment or measures.

…

3. BTI … decisions shall not cease to be valid with retroactive effect.

4. By way of derogation from Article 23(3) and Article 27, BTI … decisions shall be annulled where they are based on inaccurate or incomplete information from the applicants.

5. BTI … decisions shall be revoked in accordance with Article 23(3) and Article 28. However, such decisions shall not be revoked upon application by the holder of the decision.

6. BTI … decisions may not be amended.’

7 Section 6 of Chapter 2 of Title I of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Appeals’, comprises Articles 43 to 45.

8 Article 44 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Right of appeal’ is worded as follows:

‘1. Any person shall have the right to appeal against any decision taken by the customs authorities relating to the application of the customs legislation which concerns him or her directly and individually.

…

2. The right of appeal may be exercised in at least two steps:

(a) initially, before the customs authorities or a judicial authority or other body designated for that purpose by the Member States;

(b) subsequently, before a higher independent body, which may be a judicial authority or an equivalent specialised body, according to the provisions in force in the Member States.

…

4. Member States shall ensure that the appeals procedure enables the prompt confirmation or correction of decisions taken by the customs authorities.’

9 Article 45 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Suspension of implementation’, provides:

‘1. The submission of an appeal shall not cause implementation of the disputed decision to be suspended.

2. The customs authorities shall, however, suspend implementation of such a decision in whole or in part where they have good reason to believe that the disputed decision is inconsistent with the customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.

…’

Austrian law

10 Paragraph 279 of the Bundesabgabenordnung (Federal Fiscal Code) provides:

‘(1) Except in the cases referred to in Paragraph 278, the Verwaltungsgericht [(Administrative Court, Austria)] shall always issue a judgment on the merits. It shall be entitled, both in the operative part of the judgment and in the grounds thereof, to substitute its position for that of the tax authority and, consequently, to amend the contested decision, to annul it or to dismiss the action as unfounded.

(2) By the annulment of the contested decision, the proceedings shall be reinstated at the stage they were at prior to the adoption of that decision.

…’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

11 On 27 October 2022, at the request of G, the Customs Office issued a BTI decision for goods with the designation ‘single-use tourniquet’, which it classified under code 4008 2190 00 of the Integrated Tariff of the European Union, with a period of validity from 27 October 2022 to 26 October 2025.

12 On 22 November 2022, G filed a complaint against the decision of the Customs Office, arguing that the tariff classification made was materially incorrect. The Customs Office dismissed the complaint.

13 On 5 May 2023, G brought an action against the decision of the Customs Office before the Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Finance Court, Austria). By judgment of 12 March 2024, the Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Finance Court) upheld the action and amended that decision by classifying the goods at issue under code 4014 9000 00 of the Integrated Tariff of the European Union, with effect from the date on which that decision had been issued by the Customs Office.

14 The Customs Office lodged an appeal on a point of law against the decision of the Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Finance Court) before the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court, Austria), which is the referring court, on the ground that, on the basis of Paragraph 279 of the Federal Fiscal Code, the Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Finance Court) intended to amend the BTI decision referred to in paragraph 11 above retroactively, which is not permitted under the Union Customs Code, in particular under Article 34(3) and (6) thereof.

15 According to the referring court, in accordance with Paragraph 279(1) of the Federal Fiscal Code, the Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Finance Court) was entitled to substitute its point of view for that of the Customs Office and therefore to amend the decision at issue with retroactive effect from the date on which it had been issued by the Customs Office.

16 However, the referring court notes that the Union Customs Code expressly provides, in Article 34(4) thereof, that BTI decisions may be annulled with retroactive effect only where those decisions are based on incorrect or incomplete information provided by the applicant. Furthermore, the referring court finds that, under Article 34(3) of that code, the cessation of validity of BTI decisions does not have retroactive effect. Lastly, the referring court notes that Article 34(6) of the Union Customs Code provides that BTI decisions may not be amended.

17 However, the referring court has doubts as to whether Article 34 of the Union Customs Code has any bearing on appeals lodged in accordance with Article 44 of that code.

18 In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Are Articles 33, 34, 44 and 45 of [the Union Customs Code] – in view of the fact that, in accordance with Article 44(4) of that [code], Member States are to ensure that the appeals procedure enables the prompt confirmation or correction of decisions taken by the customs authorities – to be interpreted as meaning that the decision on an appeal lodged under Article 44(2) of [the Union Customs Code] against [BTI] issued in accordance with Article 33 of that [code] is retroactive to the date on which that [BTI] was issued by the customs office?

(2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative[,] are Articles 33, 34, 44 and 45 of [the Union Customs Code] to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may provide, in their national procedural rules, that the decision on an appeal lodged under Article 44(2) of that [code] against [BTI] issued in accordance with Article 33 of that [code] is retroactive to the date on which that [BTI] was issued by the customs office?’

Consideration of the questions referred

19 By its two questions referred for a preliminary ruling, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 44(4) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision which provides that the decision of a judicial authority hearing an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 44(2) of that code against a BTI decision has retroactive effect from the date of issue of that BTI decision by the customs authorities.

20 In accordance with Article 44(1) of the Union Customs Code, the holder of a decision relating to the application of the customs legislation taken by the customs authorities has the right to appeal against that decision.

21 Furthermore, in accordance with Article 44(4) of the Union Customs Code, Member States are to ensure that the appeals procedure enables the prompt confirmation or correction of decisions taken by the customs authorities.

22 It follows that the consequence of the decisions adopted by the judicial authorities is either the confirmation, in the event that the appeal is dismissed, or the correction, if the appeal is upheld, of the BTI decisions challenged before those authorities.

23 However, it must be stated that Article 44(4) of the Union Customs Code does not specify how the correction of BTI decisions must take place, since it does not provide a definition of the term ‘correct’ or make a reference to national law in that regard.

24 It is apparent from settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which EU law provides no definition and for which EU law makes no reference to the law of the Member States must be determined according to their meaning in everyday language, whilst considering the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they form part (see judgment of 20 November 2025, Servoprax (Medical tourniquets), C‑631/23, EU:C:2025:906, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).

25 In that regard, in the first place, it should be noted that, in everyday language, the verb ‘to correct’ is defined as referring to the action of rectifying or amending something in order to make it accurate or appropriate.

26 Although the wording of Article 44(4) of the Union Customs Code does not make it possible to determine unequivocally whether the correction for which it provides has retroactive effects, it should nevertheless be noted that a prompt correction of an unlawful BTI decision may entail the retroactive amendment of that decision. In that way, the holder of the incorrect BTI decision will benefit from a complete correction, in particular to ensure that the appropriate classification is introduced, since the incorrect BTI is deemed never to have been valid.

27 Therefore, in the absence of any reference to the contrary in the wording of Article 44(4) of the Union Customs Code, the concept of ‘correction’ may be understood as not precluding a retroactive correction intended to give the BTI decision the content which it should have had when it was adopted.

28 In the second place, as regards the contextual analysis, first, it should be noted that neither Article 33 of the Union Customs Code nor Article 34 thereof can be relevant for assessing the compatibility with EU law of national legislation which provides that the decision of a judicial authority hearing an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 44(2) of that code against a BTI decision has retroactive effect from the date of issue of that BTI decision by the customs authorities.

29 Articles 33 and 34 of the Union Customs Code, on the one hand, and Article 44 of that code, on the other, appear in different sections of the Union Customs Code, the former in Section 3 of Chapter 2 of Title I of that code, entitled ‘Decisions relating to the application of the customs legislation’, and the second in Section 6 of Chapter 2 of Title I of that code, entitled ‘Appeals’.

30 Furthermore, Article 33 of the Union Customs Code confers the competence to issue BTI on the customs administrations of the Member States responsible for the application of the customs legislation. In addition, Article 34 of the Union Customs Code governs the management of BTI and, more specifically, the cessation of validity, revocation, amendment or annulment of BTI decisions by the customs authorities. The judicial authorities responsible for ruling, in accordance with Article 44 of the Union Customs Code, on appeals against decisions taken by the customs authorities must be distinguished from those latter authorities (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 September 2023, OGL-Food Trade Lebensmittelvertrieb, C‑770/21, EU:C:2023:690, paragraph 69).

31 Thus, as the Advocate General observed in point 50 of his Opinion, the temporal effects of the customs authorities’ decisions cannot affect or have any influence on those of the judicial authorities’ decisions, since the EU legislature has not aligned the treatment of judicial authorities’ decisions with that of customs authorities’ decisions.

32 Consequently, the question of whether or not decisions taken following an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 44(2) of the Union Customs Code have retroactive effect is not governed by Articles 33 and 34 of that code.

33 Second, it follows from Article 45 of the Union Customs Code, which is in the same section as Article 44 of that code, that the customs authorities are to suspend, in whole or in part, implementation of a BTI decision which is the subject of an appeal where they have good reason to believe that that decision is inconsistent with the customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.

34 It is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice that a court seised of a dispute governed by EU law must be in a position to grant interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under EU law. Thus, Article 45 of the Union Customs Code does not limit the power of the judicial authorities, hearing an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 44(2) of that code, to suspend implementation of the disputed decision in order to comply with their obligation to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 January 2001, Kofisa Italia, C‑1/99, EU:C:2001:10, paragraphs 48 and 49).

35 As the Advocate General observed in point 66 of his Opinion, the grant of suspension of implementation necessarily goes hand in hand with the possibility of amending retroactively the legal position of economic operators in order to prevent them from suffering undue financial damage where an initial decision proves to be incorrect.

36 Therefore, Article 45 of the Union Customs Code cannot limit the possibility available to the judicial authorities hearing an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 44(2) of that code against a BTI decision to grant retroactive effect to the decision taken on that appeal in order to comply with their obligation to ensure the full effectiveness of that appeal.

37 In the third place, it should be noted that such an interpretation is also supported by the purpose of Article 44 of the Union Customs Code, which is to guarantee the right of economic operators to appeal against a decision of a customs authority.

38 As is apparent from recitals 26 and 27 of the Union Customs Code, it is for the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies which ensure respect for the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as guaranteed by the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

39 An appeal cannot be regarded as effective if it does not remedy the situation resulting from unlawful BTI and does not place the economic operator holding the decision on that BTI in the situation which he or she would have been in had the unlawfulness in question not taken place.

40 Furthermore, as the Advocate General observed in point 62 of his Opinion, it would be contrary to the right to effective judicial protection to allow the effects of a BTI decision deemed unlawful to stand, since such effects would remain in force with regard to an economic operator that had nevertheless lodged an appeal against that decision within the prescribed time limits.

41 As is apparent from paragraphs 26 and 27 above, Article 44(4) of the Union Customs Code cannot, moreover, preclude the judicial authorities, hearing an appeal under Article 44(2) of that code, from ordering that the decision on an appeal lodged against a BTI decision has retroactive effect from the date of issue of that BTI decision by the customs authority, in order to comply with their obligation to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law.

42 Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that legal certainty is one of a number of general principles recognised by EU law. Finality of an administrative decision, which is acquired upon expiry of the reasonable time limits for legal remedies or by exhaustion of those remedies, contributes to such legal certainty and it follows that EU law does not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle, to reopen an administrative decision which has become final in that way (judgment of 13 January 2004, Kühne & Heitz, C‑453/00, EU:C:2004:17, paragraph 24).

43 However, as the Advocate General observed in points 60 and 61 of his Opinion, the principle of legal certainty requires only that the effects of a BTI decision which is the subject of an appeal become final, in the event of a challenge, only from the time when the appeal has been definitively rejected or, in the absence of an appeal, from the expiry of the time limits laid down for that purpose. Thus, the principle of legal certainty cannot be invoked to justify maintaining the effects of a BTI decision in the period between its entry into force and the granting of a legal appeal lodged against it.

44 Furthermore, contrary to what is argued by the Italian Government, according to which it is difficult to ensure that all other Member States are actually aware of a national judicial decision of annulment or correction having retroactive effect, it should be noted that, pursuant to Article 21(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558), a computerised system established in accordance with Article 16(1) of the Union Customs Code is to be used for the exchange and storage of information relating to BTI applications and decisions or to any subsequent event which may affect the initial application or decision. Consequently, and as confirmed by the European Commission at the hearing, where a BTI decision is annulled or amended as a result of a decision of a judicial authority, the information is entered by the customs authority concerned in that computer system through an invalidity code associated with the BTI decision, together with the relevant date, and thus becomes visible to all customs authorities.

45 In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 44(4) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision which provides that the decision of a judicial authority hearing an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 44(2) of that code against a BTI decision has retroactive effect from the date of issue of that BTI decision by the customs authorities.

Costs

46 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 GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

Article 44(4) 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 does not preclude a national provision which provides that the decision of a judicial authority hearing an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 44(2) of that code against a decision relating to binding tariff information has retroactive effect from the date of issue of that decision relating to binding tariff information by the customs authorities.

Sampol Pucurull

Pynnä

Laitenberger

Stancu

Valasidis

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 May 2026.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: German.

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude