Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:908
Date: 2025-11-20
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation C-617/24 – 1 
Case C-617/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
23 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 September 2024 
Applicant: 
Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH 
Defendant: 
Hauptzollamt Bielefeld 
  
[…] 
FINANZGERICHT DÜSSELDORF (FINANCE COURT, DÜSSELDORF) 
ORDER 
In the case of 
Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH […] 
 […] 
 — Applicant — 
v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld […] 
 — Defendant — 
concerning Authorisation of inward processing 
 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-617/24 
 
2  
the Fourth Chamber 
[…] 
on the basis of the hearing of 4 September 2024, has decided: 
The proceedings are stayed. 
The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of 
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: 
Is Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules 
concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ EU L 343, 
p. 1) valid? 
This order is not open to appeal. 
Grounds 
I. 
1 In November 2018, the applicant applied to the defendant Hauptzollamt Bielefeld 
(Customs Office, Bielefeld) for an inward processing authorisation for goods 
imported from the People’s Republic of China. The defendant Customs Office 
informed the applicant on 22 November 2018 that the application had to be made 
using an application form together with a supplementary form. In addition, the 
completed questionnaire for customs authorisations, Parts I, II, III and V, had to 
be sent. 
2 The applicant then applied on 14 December 2018 using a form officially 
prescribed to the defendant Customs Office to be granted authorisation for inward 
processing of goods imported from the People’s Republic of China. It sent that 
application on 17 December 2018. It undertook to subsequently submit the 
questionnaires which were still missing for processing the application. On 
22 January 2019, an official of the defendant Customs Office informed the 
applicant that ‘the inward processing authorisation applied for’ would be 
‘managed under authorisation number DE/IPO/8000AV000132 after verification 
of the conditions of the authorisation’. 
3 At a meeting held on 7 February 2019, the representatives of the defendant 
Customs Office reminded the applicant that it still had to provide the 
questionnaires which it had to complete. Initially, this was not done in the 
subsequent period. On the contrary, the applicant continued to declare goods 
SIEGFRIED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS 
 
3 
imported from the People’s Republic of China until 18 July 2019 to be released 
for free circulation and paid customs duties amounting to EUR 1 173 497.14 in 
respect of them. 
4 On 12 April 2021, the applicant applied to the defendant Customs Office to grant 
it an inward processing authorisation with retroactive effect for goods which it had 
imported from the People’s Republic of China. It referred, in that regard, to its 
application of 14 December 2018 and the  meeting of 7 February 2019. In support 
of that new application, it argued that the economic disadvantages which it had 
suffered as a result of the payment of import duties should be eliminated with 
retroactive effect. In its letter of 21 May 2021, it sent, inter alia, the questionnaire 
which it had completed with a view to the granting of the customs authorisations 
specified in Parts II and III. 
5 The defendant Customs Office rejected the application by decision of 11 July 
2021. It gave the following reasons: The applicant has still not submitted Part I of 
the customs authorisation questionnaire. Nor has it demonstrated the existence of 
an economic need. 
6 In its objection lodged against that decision, the applicant claimed that the 
conditions for granting an authorisation with retroactive effect had been met. In 
particular, there was an economic need for the retroactive issue of authorisation 
since it had not been able to pass on the import duties to its customers. The 
applicant claimed that the time limit of the retroactive effect of an authorisation 
resulting from Article 172 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 
of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain 
provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ EU 343, p. 1) (‘Delegated Regulation 
2015/2446’) is incompatible with the applicable EU law. The Commission was 
not able to rely on an empowering norm for the adoption of Article 172 of 
Delegated Regulation 2015/2446. Even if there were an empowering norm, the 
Commission had exceeded the legal framework of Article 211(2) 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 EU L 269, p. 1) (‘the Customs 
Code’). 
7 On 14 July 2021, the applicant sent the defendant Customs Office Part I of a 
questionnaire filled out by it for the granting of customs authorisations. 
8 The defendant Customs Office rejected the complaint as unfounded in a decision 
of 26 July 2023 and gave the following reasons: The applicant’s application of 
14 December 2018 did not relate to the granting of an authorisation with 
retroactive effect. That application therefore did not constitute an application 
within the meaning of Article 172(1) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446. The 
applicant could not, on the basis of its application of 12 April 2021, be granted an 
authorisation with retroactive effect as it had submitted its last customs 
declaration concerned on 18 July 2019. For that reason, there was no economic 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-617/24 
 
4  
need for the granting of the authorisation with retroactive effect which it seeks. 
Nor did the applicant rely on exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 
Article 172(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446. It cannot be regarded as an 
exceptional circumstance that its application of 14 December 2018 was not 
refused. It was not possible to examine that application because documents were 
missing. Moreover, Article 172(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 does not 
breach higher-ranking EU law. The Commission was empowered under 
Article 212(a) of the Customs Code to determine the conditions for granting an 
authorisation by means of a delegated act. 
9 In its action, the applicant claims the following: Its application of 14 December 
2018 is decisive for the granting of the authorisation it seeks. That application 
should be interpreted as an application for the granting of an authorisation with 
retroactive effect. The defendant Customs Office also accepted that application 
because it allocated an authorisation number to it on 22 January 2019 and did not 
make a notification to the effect that the application was not accepted or that other 
information was required. In any event, neither Article 24(d) of the Customs Code 
nor the more specific provision of Article 212 of the Customs Code contains any 
empowering norm for the adoption of Article 172 of Delegated Regulation 
2015/2446. 
10 The defendant Customs Office states that the applicant did not apply for the 
granting of authorisation with retroactive effect on 14 December 2018. Nor, at that 
time, did it have any reason to apply for the granting of authorisation with 
retrospective effect in respect of imports which had not yet taken place at the time. 
II. 
11 The Chamber suspends the pending legal action (Paragraph 74 of the 
Finanzgerichtsordnung (Code of Procedure for Finance Courts)) and refers to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union the question referred for a preliminary 
ruling in the operative part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The outcome of the 
action depends on whether Article 172(1) and (2) of Delegated Regulation 
2015/2446 is valid. 
12 The applicant’s claim is based on Article 211(1)(1)(a) and (2) of the Customs 
Code. Under that provision, the customs authorities may authorise, inter alia, an 
inward processing procedure with retroactive effect. The defendant Customs 
Office does not dispute that the conditions laid down in points (b) to (g) of the 
first subparagraph of Article 211(2) of the Customs Code are fulfilled. 
13 Article 172(1) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 could preclude the granting of 
the authorisation with retroactive effect sought by the applicant. According to that 
provision, where the customs authority grants an authorisation with retroactive 
effect in accordance with Article 211(2) of the Customs Code, the authorisation is 
to take effect at the earliest on the date of acceptance of the application. It is 
SIEGFRIED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS 
 
5 
irrelevant, in that regard, whether the application expressly sought the granting of 
an authorisation with retroactive effect. Article 172(1) of Delegated Regulation 
2015/2446 is based solely on the fact that the authorisation takes effect at the 
earliest from the date of acceptance of an application that has not been expressly 
identified as having retroactive effect. 
14 The Chamber takes the view that the defendant Customs Office did not accept the 
applicant’s application of 14 December 2018 before 14 July 2021 within the 
meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of the Customs Code. In 
accordance with Article 12(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing 
certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, p. 558) 
(‘Implementing Regulation 2015/2447’), the date of acceptance of an application 
shall be the date on which all the information required in accordance with the 
second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of the Customs Code was received by the 
customs authority. The defendant Customs Office did not have all the required 
information. The applicant only sent Parts II and III of the questionnaire which it 
had completed for the granting of customs authorisations in a letter of 21 May 
2021. It only sent Part I of the questionnaire it had completed for the issue of 
customs authorisations to the defendant Customs Office in the objection 
proceedings following receipt of the decision of 11 July 2021. 
15 The applicant was not able to interpret the notification of the case officer of the 
defendant Customs Office of 22 January 2019, in which he informed it that ‘the 
authorisation of inward processing applied for’ […] ‘will be entered under the 
authorisation number […] after verification of the conditions for granting’ as 
approval of its application within the meaning of subparagraph 2 of Article 22(2) 
of the Customs Code. On the contrary, the case officer clearly stated that it was 
only in the future, ‘after verification of the conditions for granting’, that an 
authorisation would be entered under that authorisation number. 
16 The defendant Customs Office should therefore have informed the applicant, in 
accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Implementing 
Regulation 2015/2447, that it had not approved its application of 14 December 
2018. This was also not done. However, its application shall not be deemed to be 
accepted already on 17 December 2018 in accordance with the first sentence of 
Article 12(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447. In accordance with the 
second sentence of Article 12(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, the date 
of the acceptance shall be, in principle, the date of submission of the application to 
the customs authority. However, the applicant was requested to provide additional 
information. It did not initially accede to that request. On the contrary, it was only 
during the objection proceedings that, by letter of 14 July 2021, it sent the 
defendant Customs Office Part I of the questionnaire for the granting of customs 
authorisations which was still missing. In accordance with the second sentence of 
Article 12(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, it is therefore necessary to 
regard 14 July 2021 as the date on which the last information was submitted to the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-617/24 
 
6  
defendant Customs Office. The applicant had meanwhile already submitted its 
application for the granting of an authorisation with retroactive effect on 12 April 
2021. 
17 In accordance with Article 172(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, in 
exceptional circumstances, the customs authorities may allow an authorisation 
referred to in Article 172(1) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 to take effect at 
the earliest one year before the date of acceptance of the application. 
18 In the present case, it is unlikely that there was any economic need 
(Article 211(2)(1)(a) of the Customs Code) for the granting of an authorisation 
with retroactive effect under Article 172(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446. It 
is true that the setting of import duties against an applicant may justify an 
economic need due to the lack of authorisation with retroactive effect. Where an 
authorisation with retroactive effect is granted, the customs declaration is to be 
invalidated in accordance with Article 148(4)(d) of Delegated Regulation 
2015/2446. As a result, in accordance with Article 124(1)(d) of the Customs 
Code, the customs debt is extinguished and the corresponding amounts of import 
duties may be repaid in accordance with Article 117(1) of the Customs Code. 
However, in the present case, an authorisation granted to the applicant with 
retroactive effect under Article 172(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 could 
no longer lead to the extinguishment of customs debts, since the applicant had 
declared the goods imported from the People’s Republic of China to be released 
for free circulation by 18 July 2019. 
19 The Chamber has doubts as to the compatibility of Article 172(1) and (2) of 
Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 with higher-ranking EU law. 
20 According to the second subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU, a legislative act 
delegating to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general 
application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements must explicitly 
define the objectives, content, scope and duration of that delegation of power. 
Accordingly, the purpose of granting a delegated power may be limited to the 
adoption of rules coming within the regulatory framework as defined by the basic 
legislative act (judgments of 18 March 2014, Commission v Parliament and 
Council, C-427/12, EU:C:2014:170, paragraph 38, and of 17 March 2016, 
Parliament v Commission, C-286/14, EU:C:2016:183, paragraph 30). The 
definition of the power conferred must be sufficiently precise, in that it must 
indicate clearly the limits of the power and must enable the Commission’s use of 
the power to be reviewed by reference to objective criteria fixed by the EU 
legislature (judgment of 26 July 2017, Czech Republic v Commission, C-696/15 P, 
EU:C:2017:595, paragraph 49). 
21 The provisions authorising the adoption of Article 172(1) and (2) of Delegated 
Regulation 2015/2446 could be Articles 24(d) and 212(a) of the Customs Code. 
SIEGFRIED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS 
 
7 
22 In adopting Article 172(1) and (2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, the 
Commission relied on Article 24(d) of the Customs Code. The Commission 
expressly referred to Article 22(4) of the Customs Code in the additional text in 
brackets after the heading of Article 172 of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446. In 
accordance with Article 24(d) of the Customs Code, the Commission was 
empowered to determine the cases referred to in the first sentence of Article 22(4) 
of the Customs Code, where a decision takes effect on a different date from that 
on which the decision is notified or deemed to have been notified to the applicant. 
It is likely that this includes the power to regulate the conditions for the granting 
of an authorisation with retroactive effect in the cases referred to in 
Article 211(1)(a) of the Customs Code. 
23 The Commission has also been empowered under Article 212(a) of the Customs 
Code to determine, by means of delegated acts, the conditions for granting the 
authorisation for the procedures referred to in Article 211(1)(a) of the Customs 
Code. It is likely that this empowering norm also, in particular, covers the 
conditions for granting the authorisation with retroactive effect under 
Article 211(2) of the Customs Code. It is true that Article 212(a) of the Customs 
Code does not expressly refer to Article 211(2) of the Customs Code. However, 
the wording of Article 212(a) of the Customs Code, which determines the 
‘conditions for granting authorisation for the procedures referred to in 
Article 211(1)’ (‘les conditions d’octroi de l’autorisation aux fins des régimes 
visés à l’article 211, paragraphe 1’ in the French version of the provision) seems 
to indicate with sufficient clarity that the intention was, in particular, to empower 
the Commission to determine in detail the conditions for the granting of an 
authorisation with retroactive effect (Article 211(2) of the Customs Code), inter 
alia for the inward processing procedure referred to in Article 211(1)(a) of the 
Customs Code. 
24 However, it is doubtful whether the provisions of Article 172(1) and (2) of 
Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 fall within the legal framework as defined by the 
basic legislative act. The European Parliament and the Council have not specified, 
in Article 211(2) of the Customs Code, until what point in time the customs 
authorities may grant an authorisation with retroactive effect. It is doubtful 
whether the Commission was therefore empowered, on the basis of Article 24(d) 
and Article 212(a) of the Customs Code, to determine until what point in time the 
customs authorities may grant an authorisation with retroactive effect for the 
procedures referred to in Article 211(1) of the Customs Code. Moreover, 
Article 211(2) of the Customs Code does not provide that an authorisation can 
only be granted with retroactive effect in exceptional circumstances. 
25 In accordance with the second sentence of the second subparagraph of 
Article 290(1) TFEU, the essential elements of an area are to be reserved for the 
legislative act and accordingly shall not be the subject of a delegation of power. 
The European Parliament and the Council set out in detail in Article 211(2) of the 
Customs Code the conditions for granting an authorisation with retroactive effect. 
This might suggest that the European Parliament and the Council have not 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-617/24 
 
8  
provided for any timetable or any other condition for the granting an authorisation 
with retroactive effect. Furthermore, provision of a timetable for granting an 
authorisation with retroactive effect could constitute an essential element of EU 
customs legislation, which was reserved for a provision contained in the Customs 
Code and which excluded a delegation of power. 
26 In any event, the nature of a delegation of power provided for in Article 24(d) and 
Article 212(a) of the Customs Code is unclear. According to those provisions, the 
Commission is entitled to ‘determine’ the cases referred to in the first sentence of 
Article 22(4) of the Customs Code, where the decision is to take effect from a date 
which is different from the date on which the applicant receives it or is deemed to 
have received it, as well as the conditions for granting authorisation for the 
procedures referred to in Article 211(1)(a) of the Customs Code. 
27 It follows from the wording ‘to supplement or amend’ that the two categories of 
delegated powers laid down in Article 290(1) TFEU are clearly distinguished 
(judgment of 17 March 2016, Parliament v Commission, C-286/14, 
EU:C:2016:183, paragraph 40). The delegation of a power to ‘supplement’ a 
legislative act is meant only to authorise the Commission to flesh out that act. 
Where the Commission exercises that power, its authority is limited, in 
compliance with the entirety of the legislative act, adopted by the legislature, to 
development in detail of non-essential elements of the legislation in question that 
the legislature has not specified. (judgment of 17 March 2016, Parliament v 
Commission, C-286/14, EU:C:2016:183, paragraph 41). By contrast, the 
delegation of a power to ‘amend’ a legislative act aims to authorise the 
Commission to modify or repeal non-essential elements laid down by the 
legislature in that act. In cases where the Commission exercises that power, it is 
not required to act in compliance with the elements that the authority conferred on 
it aims precisely to ‘amend’.(judgment of 17 March 2016, Parliament v 
Commission, C-286/14, EU:C:2016:183, paragraph 42). These differences 
between the two categories of delegated powers referred to in Article 290(1) 
TFEU preclude the assumption that the Commission may be granted the power to 
determine itself the nature of the delegated power conferred on it. That provision 
requires the legislature to determine the nature of the delegation that it intends to 
confer on the Commission. (judgment of 17 March 2016, Parliament v 
Commission, C-286/14, EU:C:2016:183, paragraph 46). 
28 The wording of Article 24(d) and Article 212(a) of the Customs Code, according 
to which the Commission would be entitled to ‘determine’ the cases referred to in 
the first sentence of Article 22(4) of the Customs Code or the conditions for 
granting the authorisation, do not appear to indicate whether the Commission is 
empowered to adopt acts which are only complementary or even amending. 
Meanwhile, the Commission provides differently, for example in Article 6(8)(d) 
of its Proposal of 17 May 2023 (COM (2023) 258 final) for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Customs Code 
and the European Union Customs Authority and repealing Regulation (EU) 
No 952/2013 (Celex 52023PC0258).  
SIEGFRIED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS 
 
9 
29 It is true that the Commission had already adopted provisions similar to those 
contained in Article 172(1) and (2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 in 
Article 508(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 
1993, laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1), 
as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 (OJ EC 
L 141 p. 1). These provisions were adopted before the entry into force of 
Article 290 TFEU on 1 December 2009, however, which was only inserted into 
the TFEU with the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty 
on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ L 
EU C 306, p. 1). 
30 It is true that the Court of Justice of the European Union did not call into question 
the effectiveness of Article 172(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 (in the 
judgment of 9 July 2020, Unipack, C-391/19, EU:C:2020:547, paragraphs 30 and 
31).The Court also, (in its judgment of 21 October 2021, Beeren-, Wild-, 
Feinfrucht, C-825/19, EU:C:2021:869, paragraph 43 et seq.) did not call into 
question the validity of the period of one year applicable in principle in the 
provision of Article 294(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 corresponding to 
Article 508(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 993/2001. However, in those two 
references for a preliminary ruling, the national courts referred only questions of 
interpretation to the Court and not questions of validity. 
31 Moreover, it is doubtful whether the provision on the timetable for granting an 
authorisation with retroactive effect in Article 172(1) and (2) of Delegated 
Regulation 2015/2446 satisfies the requirement to state reasons for such an act. 
Exercise of the Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts is subject to 
compliance with certain requirements. For example, the objectives pursued by a 
delegated regulation must be such as to justify its adoption, that regulation must 
satisfy the requirement to state reasons imposed on such an act (judgment of 
21 September 2023, Stappert Deutschland, C-210/22, EU:C:2023:693, paragraph 
53). 
32 The Commission, in the fourteenth recital of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 to 
justify the provision of Article 172(1) and (2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, 
merely indicates that, in certain cases a decision should take effect from a date 
which is different from the date on which the applicant receives it or is deemed to 
have received it, namely when the applicant has requested a different date of 
effect or the effect of the decision is conditional to the completion of certain 
formalities by the applicant. Those cases should be thoroughly identified, for the 
sake of clarity and legal certainty. The question which arises is whether that 
statement of reasons, formulated in general terms, is sufficient to ‘determine’ a 
provision as far-reaching for economic operators and for the customs authorities 
of the Member States as that relating to the timetable for issuing an authorisation 
with retroactive effect. 
[…]