Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 October 2026.#European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Belgische Staat, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Algemene Administratie van de Douane en Accijnzen (AAD&A) v Prestige Rijwielen NV and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Classification of goods – Combined Nomenclature – Article presented unassembled or disassembled – Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature – Parts intended to form, once assembled, electric bicycles – Presentation of items in staggered consignments – Classification as a complete article.#Case T-529/25.

Provisional text

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

7 October 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Classification of goods – Combined Nomenclature – Article presented unassembled or disassembled – Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature – Parts intended to form, once assembled, electric bicycles – Presentation of items in staggered consignments – Classification as a complete article )

In Case T‑529/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the hof van beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp, Belgium), made by decision of 26 June 2025, received at the Court of Justice on 18 July 2025, in the proceedings

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO),

Belgische Staat, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Algemene Administratie van de Douane en Accijnzen (AAD&A)

v

Prestige Rijwielen NV,

Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium NV,

ZG,

in the presence of:

Belgische Staat, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Algemene Administratie van de Bijzondere Belastinginspectie (AABBI),

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

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

Advocate General: J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares,

Registrar: L. Ramette, Administrator,

having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 1 August 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 (d) 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 23 April 2026,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), by J.F. Castillo García, L. De Matteis, T. Gut, M. Simonato and J. Vanderputten, acting as Agents,

–        Prestige Rijwielen NV, by T. Dujardin and K. Francken, lawyers,

–        Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium NV, by J. De Bruyn, Y. Melin and V. Van Opdenbosch, lawyers,

–        ZG, by T. Dujardin and K. Francken, lawyers,

–        the Belgian Government, S. Baeyens, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by A. Baeckelmans, A. Demeneix, F. Moro and W. Roels, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 June 2026,

gives the following      

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation 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), as amended, successively, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1602 of 11 October 2018 (OJ 2018 L 273, p. 1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 (OJ 2019 L 280, p. 1) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1577 of 21 September 2020 (OJ 2020 L 361, p. 1) (‘the NC’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) and the Belgische Staat, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Algemene Administratie van de Douane en Accijnzen (AAD&A) (Belgian State, Federal Public Service Finance, General Administration of Customs and Excise (AGDA)) (‘the customs authority’) against two companies incorporated under Belgian law, Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium NV and Prestige Rijwielen NV, as well as ZG, [confidential], (1) concerning criminal proceedings and tax claims relating to a series of imports into the European Union of electric bicycle parts.

 Legal framework

 International law

 HS

3        The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (‘the HS’) was drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council, which has since become the World Customs Organization (WCO), established by the Convention establishing a Customs Co-operation Council, concluded in Brussels on 15 December 1950. The HS was established by the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, done at Brussels on 14 June 1983 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 3), and approved, together with its amending protocol of 24 June 1986, on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1).

4        Pursuant to Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, each contracting party undertakes to apply the General Rules for the interpretation of the HS and all the Section, Chapter and Subheading Notes of the HS, and not to modify the scope of those sections, chapters and subheadings.

5        Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the HS provides, in its first part, that any reference in a heading to an article is to be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential characteristics of the complete or finished article; and, in its second part, that such a reference is also to be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or failing to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.

 Explanatory Notes to the HS

6        The Explanatory Notes to the HS are drawn up by the WCO in accordance with the provisions of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.

7        Points V and VII of the Explanatory Note relating to Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the HS state:

‘(V)      The second part of Rule 2(a) provides that complete or finished articles presented unassembled or disassembled are to be classified in the same heading as the assembled article. When goods are so presented, it is usually for reasons such as requirements or convenience of packing, handling or transport.

…

(VII)      For the purposes of this Rule, “articles presented unassembled or disassembled” means articles the components of which are to be assembled either by means of fixing devices (screws, nuts, bolts, etc.) or by riveting or welding, for example, provided only assembly operations are involved.

No account is to be taken in that regard of the complexity of the assembly method. However, the components shall not be subjected to any further working operation for completion into the finished state.

Unassembled components of an article which are in excess of the number required for that article when complete are to be classified separately.’

 European Union law

 NC

8        The various versions of the NC applicable to the facts at issue in the main proceedings, which took place during the period from 22 January 2019 to 27 April 2021, are, for the year 2019, that resulting from Implementing Regulation 2018/1602; for the year 2020, that resulting from Implementing Regulation 2019/1776; and, for the year 2021, that resulting from Implementing Regulation 2020/1577. The wording of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN and the additional notes, referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 below, as well as tariff headings and subheadings 8711, 8711 60, 8711 60 10 and 8714 of the CN, do not differ between those various versions.

9        The General rules for the interpretation of the CN, which are set out in Part One, Section I(A), of the CN, provide as follows:

‘Classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature shall be governed by the following principles:

1.      The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions.

2.      (a)      Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this Rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.

…’

10      The second part of the CN, entitled ‘Schedule of customs duties’, comprises Section XVII, entitled ‘Vehicles, aircraft, vessels and associated transport equipment’. Chapter 87 of this section, entitled ‘Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof’, comprises inter alia the following headings and subheadings:

11      Under the terms of Additional note 3 to Section XVI of the CN, relating to ‘Machinery and mechanical appliances; electrical equipment; parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers, television image and sound recorders and reproducers, and parts and accessories of such articles’:

‘The provisions of general rule 2(a) are also applicable, at the request of the declarant and subject to conditions stipulated by the competent authorities, to machines imported in split consignments.’

12      Pursuant to Additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN:

‘The provisions of general rule 2(a) are also applicable, at the request of the declarant and subject to conditions stipulated by the competent authorities, to goods of headings 8608, 8805, 8905 and 8907 imported in split consignments.’

 Explanatory Notes to the CN

13      With regard to Additional note 3 to Section XVI of the CN, the Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (OJ 2019 C 119, p. 1) (‘the Explanatory Notes to the CN’) state:

‘A machine in a disassembled or unassembled state may be imported in several consignments over a period of time, if this is necessary for convenience of trade or transport.

In order to be able to declare the different constituent parts under the same tariff heading or subheading as the assembled machine, the declarant must make a request in writing to the customs post not later than the first consignment …

…

The application may be accepted only in fulfilment of a contract for the supply or a machine which can be regarded as complete for the purposes of the Combined Nomenclature.

All the constituent parts must be imported through the same entry point within the allowed time. However, in special cases, the competent authorities may authorise importation through several points of entry. This time limit may not be exceeded unless a reasoned and justified request for an extension is made to the competent authorities.

Upon each partial importation, a list of the parts making up the consignment with references to the aforementioned general inventory must be provided. The customs declaration for each consignment must contain descriptions of both the part or parts making up the consignment and the complete machine.’

14      With regard to Additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN, the Explanatory Notes to the CN state that ‘the explanatory note to additional note 3 to section XVI applies, mutatis mutandis.’

 The dispute in the main proceedings

15      On 19 January 2019, implementing regulations of the European Commission came into force, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in China. Those duties apply to electric bicycles falling within CN subheading 8711 60 10, but not to parts and accessories for electric bicycles, which fall within CN heading 8714.

16      Between 22 January 2019 and 27 April 2021, Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium, acting as the representative of Prestige Rijwielen, submitted 27 import declarations for frames, forks, motors and other parts for electric bicycles (‘the parts in question’) which the latter company had purchased from two companies based in China. Those declarations, all of which were lodged with the same customs office, stated that the parts in question were of Chinese origin and that Prestige Rijwielen was the consignee. The parts in question were declared as parts and accessories for electric bicycles falling under CN heading 8714.

17      Following an inspection, the customs authorities, in a report dated 9 August 2022, identified, amongst the 27 import declarations submitted by Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium, six ‘groups’ of declarations, each corresponding to a set of frames, forks, motors and other parts for electric bicycles which, taken together, enabled complete electric bicycles to be assembled. According to the customs authorities, the link between the import declarations belonging to the same group stemmed from the fact that the invoices attached to those declarations bore the same reference number.

18      The EPPO and the customs authorities brought, respectively, criminal proceedings and two sets of civil proceedings against Prestige Rijwielen, [confidential] ZG and Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium. They consider that the defendants unlawfully declared the parts in question as parts and accessories for electric bicycles, when they should have been declared as complete electric bicycles, and that they thereby evaded payment of the full amount of anti-dumping and countervailing duties and part of the import duties for which they were liable. The amounts evaded total more than EUR 2.9 million.

19      By a judgment of 28 June 2024, the rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen, afdeling Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp, Antwerp Division, Belgium) sentenced, in respect of the criminal proceedings, Prestige Rijwielen to a fine and ZG to a term of imprisonment as well as a fine. It also ordered the confiscation of the parts in question. In respect of the civil proceedings, it ordered Prestige Rijwielen and ZG jointly and severally to pay the value of those parts, as well as the anti-dumping and countervailing duties and the import duties evaded. The rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen, afdeling Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp, Antwerp Division) held that the parts in question had been ordered in their entirety from China as disassembled electric bicycles and had subsequently been sold to consumers as complete electric bicycles; consequently, in accordance with Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, those parts were to be declared as complete electric bicycles.

20      The EPPO and the customs authorities, on the one hand, and Prestige Rijwielen and ZG, on the other, have lodged an appeal against the judgment of the rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen, afdeling Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp, Antwerp Division) before the hof van beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp, Belgium), which is the referring court, in respect of both the criminal proceedings and the civil claims.

21      In that context, the referring court notes, in the first place, that, in the judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346), the Court of Justice, with regard to Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, refers to objective factors which may or may not demonstrate that the parts form a whole and comprise all the components of an apparatus. It further notes that, according to the Court, that rule should not be interpreted as allowing importers to choose for themselves, by means of a relatively simple manipulation, the most favourable tariff classification for the imported goods, by treating them either as a whole or separately.

22      The referring court points out, in the second place, that, in the judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346), the Court clarified that, for parts to be regarded as goods presented in a disassembled or unassembled state, they must be presented for customs clearance at the same time. In the main proceedings, with the exception of the first group of declarations, a period of one to several months elapsed between the first and the last import declaration.

23      In the third place, the referring court notes that, in one of its opinions, the European Anti-Fraud Office does not appear to refer to the application of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN in cases where the goods were not presented on the same day.

24      In those circumstances, the hof van beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Should … Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, … be interpreted as meaning that parts of an electric bicycle intended, after being released for free circulation, to be assembled into an electric bicycle, which are invoiced by two different suppliers and transported in different containers and […] are declared by the same declarant, in the name and on behalf of the same consignee, spread over a period of up to several months, at the same customs office for free circulation by means of separate declarations for free circulation, and which, when released for free circulation, are the property of the consignee, must be classified as electric bicycles presented in a disassembled or unassembled state within the meaning of the aforementioned rule, and therefore fall under one and the same tariff heading, in so far as objective factors show that those parts form a whole and comprise all the essential components of those electric bicycles?’

 Consideration of the question referred

25      By its question, the referring court asks whether Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN must be interpreted as meaning that parts of an electric bicycle, which, after their release for free circulation, are intended to be assembled into an electric bicycle, which are invoiced by two different suppliers and transported in different containers, which are declared for the purposes of their release for free circulation at the same customs office by the same declarant, in the name and on behalf of the same consignee, by means of separate declarations for release for free circulation spread over a period of up to several months, and which, at the time of their release for free circulation, belong to the consignee, must be classified as electric bicycles presented in a disassembled or unassembled state, within the meaning of that rule, and are therefore subject to a single tariff heading, in so far as objective factors show that those parts form a whole and comprise all the essential components of those electric bicycles.

26      It should be noted, at the outset, that, when the EU judicature is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of classification for customs purposes, its task is to provide the national courts with guidance on the criteria which will enable the latter to classify the goods at issue correctly in the CN, rather than to effect that classification itself. Indeed, the description, for classification purposes, of the goods at issue is the consequence of a simple finding of fact which it is not for the EU judicature to make in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (see judgment of 28 April 2022, PRODEX, C‑72/21, EU:C:2022:312, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

27      Furthermore, the Court has held that the explanatory notes drawn up by the Commission as regards the CN and by the WCO as regards the HS may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings, but do not have legally binding force. The wording of those notes must therefore be consistent with the provisions of the CN and cannot alter their scope (see judgment of 10 March 2016, VAD and van Aert, C‑499/14, EU:C:2016:155, paragraphs 33 and 34 and the case-law cited).

28      It is important to point out that, according to Rule 1 of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, the classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any section or chapter notes to that nomenclature. In the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods is, in general, to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of that nomenclature and in the section or chapter notes (see judgment of 28 April 2022, PRODEX, C‑72/21, EU:C:2022:312, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

29      Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, which corresponds to Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the HS, provides that ‘any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article [and] shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled’.

30      The objective characteristics and properties of products must be capable of being assessed at the time of customs clearance. Furthermore, the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to the product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (see judgment of 27 September 2007, Medion and Canon Deutschland, C‑208/06 and C‑209/06, EU:C:2007:553, paragraphs 36 and 37 and the case-law cited).

31      In the present case, it should be noted that the reference for a preliminary ruling is based on the premiss that there is sufficient objective evidence to show that the parts in question form a whole and are intended to be assembled at a later date into complete electric bicycles. It is apparent from the order for reference that the parts in question were purchased by the same consignee from the same intermediary, that the relevant declarations were lodged by the same declarant at the same customs office, that the parts in question correspond to a certain number of complete electric bicycles, that the reference numbers on the invoices make it possible to identify sets of parts capable of constituting a certain number of electric bicycles, that the consignee has ceased to import complete electric bicycles, and that, at the time of their release for free circulation, the parts in question belonged to the consignee.

32      In that context, the referring court seeks clarification as to whether Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN must be applied to parts in respect of which there is objective evidence that they form a single unit and are intended to be assembled at a later date into complete electric bicycles, where those parts have been the subject of separate declarations for release for free circulation spread over a period of up to several months.

33      With regard to the possible requirement for simultaneous presentation in the context of the application of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, it should be noted that the wording of that rule does not specify the time limits within which the components of a complete article must be presented to customs in order for them to be regarded as a single unit.

34      Furthermore, Additional note 3 to Section XVI and Additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN, referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, provide that the provisions of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN apply to certain goods presented in instalments. Although those notes do not relate to the parts in question, it may be inferred that the simultaneous presentation of the goods is not, in all cases, an essential condition for the application of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN.

35      Furthermore, it is clear from the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to Additional note 3 to Section XVI of the CN, referred to in paragraph 13 above, read in conjunction with Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, that it is possible for an importer to declare, from the first consignment in a series of consignments spread over time, the separate parts of a machine in a disassembled or unassembled state under the heading or subheading to which the complete machine belongs, provided that they possess the essential characteristics of that machine. It should be noted in that regard that the obligation on the declarant to provide accurate information also extends to the determination of the correct subheading at the time of the tariff classification of the goods (see judgment of 15 September 2011, DP grup, C‑138/10, EU:C:2011:587, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).

36      It follows from the foregoing considerations that Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN must be applied where the separate parts of an article possess the essential characteristics of the complete article. That condition must be verifiable on the basis of objective factors at the time of customs clearance, which may be the case even where the separate parts are not presented simultaneously.

37      That interpretation is not called into question by the judgments of 8 May 1974, Osram (183/73, EU:C:1974:50, paragraph 7), of 16 June 1994, Develop Dr. Eisbein (C‑35/93, EU:C:1994:252, paragraphs 19 and 23), and of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraph 24), in which the Court of Justice held, in the context of the interpretation of the second part of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the interpretation of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, set out in the annex to Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of the Council of 28 June 1968 on the common customs tariff (OJ 1968 L 172, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1/73 of the Council of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 L 1, p. 1), or of the interpretation of Part II of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, that the simultaneous presentation of the constituent parts of an article for customs clearance was required for them to be regarded as constituting an article presented in a disassembled or unassembled state.

38      In the cases giving rise to the judgments referred to in paragraph 37 above, the fact that the parts of a complete article had to be presented simultaneously for the purposes of customs clearance was not the subject of the requests for a preliminary ruling; consequently, the Court of Justice was not called upon to interpret the concept of ‘simultaneous presentation’ in those judgments.

39      Furthermore, in the judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraphs 25 to 28), the Court of Justice clarified the reasons why Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that goods are presented to customs in separate declarations cannot, in itself, preclude them from being classified as goods in a disassembled or unassembled state, if, at the time of customs clearance, it is apparent from other objective factors that those goods form a whole and are intended to be assembled at a later date into a single article.

40      The Court of Justice has stated, in that regard, that to interpret the concept of an ‘article presented unassembled or disassembled’ differently would, in practice, permit importers themselves to choose, by means of a relatively simple manipulation, such as the presentation of the goods in separate declarations, the tariff classification of the goods at issue – whether together as a unit, or separately – that is the most favourable for them (see judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).

41      As the Commission noted at the hearing, certain import practices – such as staggered shipments – have become widespread, highlighting a risk of manipulation when the goods are presented to customs, which allows importers to choose their tariff classification.

42      Such a possibility would be contrary to the principle that the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods is in general to be found in their objective characteristics and properties and would therefore undermine the objective of ensuring ease of verification and legal certainty which must govern the tariff classification of imported goods (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

43      It follows that the fact that goods are presented to customs in separate declarations spread over several weeks or several months cannot, in itself, prevent those goods from being classified as articles in a disassembled or unassembled state, within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, if, at the time of customs clearance, it is apparent from other objective factors that those goods form a whole and are intended to be assembled at a later date into a single article, which it is for the referring court to ascertain (see, to that effect and by analogy, the judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

44      The fact that the component parts of a complete article are presented simultaneously at customs is not a necessary and sufficient condition for finding that they form a whole and therefore constitute an ‘article presented unassembled or disassembled’, within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN. It is merely an indication from which such a finding may be inferred, to be assessed in conjunction with the other relevant circumstances (see, to that effect and by analogy, the judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraphs 25 and 30 and the case-law cited).

45      Consequently, Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN must be interpreted as meaning that parts of an electric bicycle which are intended, after their release for free circulation, to be assembled into an electric bicycle, which are invoiced by two different suppliers and transported in different containers, which are declared for the purposes of their release for free circulation at the same customs office by the same declarant, in the name and on behalf of the same consignee, by means of separate declarations for release for free circulation spread over a period of up to several months, and which, at the time of their release for free circulation, belong to the consignee, must be classified as electric bicycles presented in a disassembled or unassembled state, within the meaning of that rule, and therefore fall under a single tariff heading, provided that objective factors show that those form a whole and comprise all the essential components of those electric bicycles.

 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 General 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:

Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation 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, as amended, successively, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1602 of 11 October 2018, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1577 of 21 September 2020,

must be interpreted as meaning that parts of an electric bicycle which, following their release for free circulation, are intended to be assembled into an electric bicycle, which are invoiced by two different suppliers and transported in separate containers, which are declared for the purposes of their release for free circulation at the same customs office by the same declarant, in the name and on behalf of the same consignee, by means of separate declarations for release for free circulation spread over a period of up to several months, and which, at the time of their release for free circulation, belong to the consignee, must be classified as electric bicycles presented in a disassembled or unassembled state, within the meaning of that rule, and therefore fall under a single tariff heading, provided that objective factors show that those parts form a whole and comprise all the essential components of those electric bicycles.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 October 2026.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: Dutch.

---

1 Confidential information redacted.