Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:73
Date: 2026-02-05
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation C-619/24 – 1 
Case C-619/24 
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: 
JG 
Defendant: 
Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf 
  
[…] FINANZGERICHT DÜSSELDORF 
(FINANCE COURT, DÜSSELDORF) 
ORDER 
In the case of 
 
 JG 
– Applicant – 
 […] 
v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Principal Customs 
Office, Düsseldorf) […] 
– Defendant – 
 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-619/24 
 
2  
concerning Seizure pursuant to Article 3i of Regulation (EU) 
No 833/2014 
 
the Fourth Chamber has […], on the basis of an oral hearing held on 4 September 
2024, made the following order: 
[…]  
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary 
ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union: 
1. Must Article 3i(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 
2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions 
destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as 
amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/576 of 8 April 2022 (OJ 
2022 L 111, p. 1), be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on the 
importation or transfer of goods, as listed in Annex XXI, applies only 
if it can be established that the goods in question generate significant 
revenues for Russia thereby enabling its actions destabilising the 
situation in Ukraine? 
2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Must 
Article 3i(3ad) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 
2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions 
destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as 
amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2878 of 18 December 
2023 (OJ L 2023/2878), be interpreted as meaning that the registration 
permitted thereunder of a vehicle which was in the territory of the 
Union on 19 December 2023 also applies to a motor vehicle which is 
not covered by Article 3i(3ab) or (3ac) of Regulation (EU) 
No 833/2014 and whose importation or transfer into the Union is 
prohibited under Article 3i(1) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, and 
the competent customs authority must lift the seizure of the vehicle 
concerned despite that prohibition? 
[…] Grounds 
I. 
1 The applicant is a Russian national resident in Düsseldorf. On 27 January 2023, he 
purchased a second-hand Mercedes car in Russia from a Russian national for a 
purchase price of RUB 5 000 000. The vehicle was registered to the applicant as 
the holder in Russia on 3 February 2023. He initially drove the vehicle to Poland 
on 11 May 2023. From there, the vehicle was transported without licence plates 
on a trailer to Germany, where it arrived at the applicant’s place of residence in 
Düsseldorf in May. 
HAUPTZOLLAMT DÜSSELDORF 
 
3 
2 On 28 August 2023, the applicant declared the vehicle to the defendant principal 
customs office for release into free circulation with a customs value of 
EUR 50 390.71. The defendant principal customs office seized the vehicle by 
order of 28 August 2023 and declared the customs declaration invalid on the 
ground that the import of the vehicle was prohibited under Article 3i(1) of Council 
Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in 
view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, 
p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/427 of 25 February 2023 (OJ 
2023 L 59 I, p. 6) (Regulation No 833/2014). 
3 In his complaint against the seizure of the vehicle, the applicant submitted: The 
requirements laid down in Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 are not 
satisfied. When examining whether Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 
precludes the importation or transfer of a vehicle into the European Union, it must 
also be examined whether the goods in question generate significant revenue for 
Russia thereby enabling it to destabilise the situation in Ukraine. The purchase of 
the vehicle from a private individual had not generated any revenue for the 
Russian State which would have enabled it to destabilise the situation in Ukraine. 
The seller did not have to pay any taxes on the purchase price received. The 
amount of the purchase price was also not significant in relation to the costs of the 
Russian war effort. Moreover, under Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014, 
incorporated by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2878 of 18 December 2023 (OJ 
L 2023/2878), the vehicle could now be registered because it had been in the 
territory of the Union before 19 December 2023. 
4 The defendant principal customs office rejected the complaint as unfounded by its 
decision of 5 April 2023 and stated: The importation and transfer of a vehicle into 
the Union are prohibited under Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014. Since the 
vehicle was listed under heading 8703 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) in 
Annex XXI to Regulation No 833/2014, it was no longer necessary to examine 
whether it generated significant revenue for Russia and thereby enabled Russia to 
destabilise the situation in Ukraine. That conclusion was supported by the 
exceptions laid down in Article 3i(3a) and 3ab of Regulation No 833/2014, which 
concern goods necessary for the personal use of nationals of Member States. The 
applicant could not successfully rely on Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation 
No 833/2014. That rule does not relate to the prohibition on the importation or 
transfer laid down in Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014. Moreover, the 
registration referred to in Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014 relates only 
to vehicles which have been lawfully in the territory of the Union for another 
reason. 
5 In his application against the seizure order, the applicant submits: The vehicle was 
in the territory of the Union on 19 December 2023 and therefore can be registered 
under Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014. The registration of the vehicle 
permitted thereunder requires that the defendant principal customs office lift the 
seizure and comply with his customs declaration. Since the vehicle is not 
manifestly intended for sale, as required by Article 3i(3aa) of Regulation 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-619/24 
 
4  
No 833/2014, any prohibition under Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 does 
not preclude registration thereof under Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014. 
That rule does not only apply to motor vehicles referred to in Article 3i(3ab) and 
(3ac) of Regulation No 833/2014. Moreover, Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 does not only apply to vehicles which were lawfully in the territory 
of the Union on 19 December 2023. 
6 In any event, the importation and transfer of the vehicle into the Union is not 
prohibited under Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014. The vehicle does not 
generate significant revenue for Russia and does not enable it to destabilise the 
situation in Ukraine. In accordance with the wording of the provision, the 
examination of that condition may not be dispensed with, having regard to the 
principle of proportionality. 
7 The defendant principal customs office submits: The applicant cannot successfully 
rely on Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014 because that provision is 
without prejudice to the prohibition laid down in Article 3i(1) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 and the customs authority is not responsible for the registration of 
motor vehicles. Article 3i(3aa) of Regulation No 833/2014 did not yet apply at the 
time of the seizure and does not relate to motor vehicles. Furthermore, the seizure 
of the vehicle is not disproportionate. 
II. 
8 The following provision of the Zollverwaltungsgesetz (Law on customs 
administration) (ZollVG) of 21 December 1992 (Bundesgesetzblatt 1992 Part I, 
page 2125; 1993 Part I, page 2493), most recently amended by Article 6(6) of the 
Law of 5 July 2021 (Bundesgesetzblatt 2021 Part I, page 2274), is relevant to the 
decision on the questions referred: 
9 Paragraph 13 Putting up goods for sale 
(1) In so far as the Union Customs Code and other provisions of EU law provide 
that goods can be sold by the customs authorities, they can be seized by 
removal or freezing injunction by the customs authorities … 
(2) Within the framework of Article 197 of the Union Customs Code, 
temporarily stored goods can be sold by the customs authorities if they are in 
danger of deterioration or substantial depreciation or if the storage, care or 
preservation thereof is disproportionately expensive or difficult. Paragraph 1 
shall be applied. 
(3) Goods which cannot be sold pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2 can be destroyed. 
III. 
10 The Chamber […] refers the questions set out in the operative part to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) for a preliminary ruling pursuant 
HAUPTZOLLAMT DÜSSELDORF 
 
5 
to the second subparagraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU). 
11 The outcome of the action turns, first, on whether Article 3i(1) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on the 
importation or transfer of goods listed in Annex XXI applies only if it can be 
established that the goods in question generate significant revenue for Russia 
thereby enabling its actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. 
12 Pursuant to the first sentence of Paragraph 13(1) of the ZollVG, goods can be 
seized by the customs authorities by removal or freezing injunction in so far as the 
Union Customs Code and other provisions of EU law provide that goods can be 
sold by the customs authorities. Under Article 198(1)(b)(iv) 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 customs 
authorities may confiscate and sell goods if they are subject to prohibitions or 
restrictions. 
13 In the case at issue, the question arises as to whether the prohibition laid down in 
Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 precludes the importation or transfer of 
the motor vehicle of heading 8703 CN, declared by the applicant for release into 
free circulation, which falls under Annex XXI to Regulation No 833/2014. The 
Chamber has doubts as to the interpretation of Article 3i(1) of Regulation 
No 833/2014. If that provision is interpreted as meaning that for the prohibition to 
be triggered it is sufficient that the goods in question are listed in Annex XXI and 
originate in Russia or have been exported from Russia, the list of goods and 
technologies referred to in Article 3i in Annex XXI to Regulation No 833/2014 
would be attributed the meaning of an irrebuttable presumption. It would then no 
longer be important whether or not the goods in question actually generate 
significant revenue for Russia thereby enabling it to destabilise the situation in 
Ukraine. 
14 It is not clear from the wording of Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 in 
various language versions whether, when applying the rule, it is possible to 
dispense with the examination of whether the goods in question generate 
significant revenue for Russia thereby enabling it to destabilise the situation in 
Ukraine. In the Dutch (‘de in bijlage XXI vermelde goederen die …’) and German 
versions (‘die in Anhang XXI aufgeführten Güter, die …’) of the provision, that 
condition immediately follows the naming of the goods listed in Annex XXI. That 
may suggest that for the prohibition to apply it is not sufficient that the goods in 
question are listed in Annex XXI and originate in Russia or have been exported 
from Russia. The English (‘as listed in Annex XXI’), French (‘tels qu’énumérés à 
l’annexe XXI’), Spanish (‘enumerados en el anexo XXI’), Italian (‘elencati 
nell'allegato XXI’) and Portuguese (‘tal como enumeradas no anexo XXI’) 
versions of the rule could militate against that. Those language versions could 
suggest that for the prohibition to be triggered it is sufficient that the goods in 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-619/24 
 
6  
question are listed in Annex XXI and originate in Russia or have been exported 
from Russia. 
15 Such an interpretation of the provision could significantly facilitate its application 
by the customs authorities and courts of the Member States because in many cases 
it may not be possible reliably to determine whether the goods in question 
generate significant revenue for Russia thereby enabling it to destabilise the 
situation in Ukraine. That conclusion could also be supported by the various 
goods listed in Annex XXI, which include, for example, preparations for use on 
the hair of heading 3305 CN and preparations for oral or dental hygiene of 
heading 3306 CN. 
16 The systematic context of Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 in comparison 
with the other provisions of that article is unlikely to provide any clear indications 
for interpreting the provision. Article 3i(3aa) and (3ab) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 could suggest that, in the Council’s view, personal property 
manifestly not intended for sale and motor vehicles intended exclusively for 
personal use may also be covered by the prohibition laid down in Article 3i(1) of 
Regulation No 833/2014. In the case of such items and motor vehicles, it is not 
readily conceivable that they could generate significant revenue for Russia thereby 
enabling it to destabilise the situation in Ukraine. However, Article 3i(3aa) and 
(3ab) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 was only incorporated with effect from 
19 December 2023 by Article 1(10)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2878 of 
18 December 2023 (OJ L 2023/2878). That suggests that Article 3i(3aa) and (3ab) 
of Regulation No 833/2014 may not yet be used for the purpose of interpretation 
in the case at issue, in which the importation of the applicant’s vehicle already 
took place in May 2023 (see, to that effect, Court of Justice, judgments of 7 June 
2001, C-479/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:317, paragraph 31, and of 16 December 2010, 
C-339/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:781, paragraph 27). 
17 The origin of Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 could suggest that, when 
introducing the prohibition, the Council was not concerned with establishing, in a 
specific case, that goods listed in Annex XXI actually generate significant revenue 
for Russia thereby enabling it to destabilise the situation in Ukraine. Article 3i(1) 
of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 was incorporated by Article 1(13) of Council 
Regulation (EU) 2022/576 of 8 April 2022 (OJ 2022 L 111, p. 1). That was based 
on Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/578 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 
2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions 
destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 111, p. 70). According to 
recitals 5 and 6 of Decision (CFSP) 2022/578, inter alia further coordinated 
sanctions and restrictive measures should be imposed quickly against Russia and 
Belarus to effectively thwart Russian abilities to continue the aggression. To that 
end, additional import restrictions on certain goods exported by or originating 
from Russia should be introduced (seventh sentence of recital 6 of Decision 
(CFSP) 2022/578). That could suggest that the Council did not want to attribute to 
the wording ‘goods which generate significant revenues for Russia thereby 
enabling its actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine’, which was partially 
HAUPTZOLLAMT DÜSSELDORF 
 
7 
taken from the title of the regulation, the meaning of a condition to be examined 
independently. 
18 On the other hand, the principle of proportionality could suggest that Article 3i(1) 
of Regulation No 833/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible 
to dispense with the examination of whether the goods in question generate 
significant revenue for Russia thereby enabling it to destabilise the situation in 
Ukraine. 
19 The principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law 
and is enshrined in Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union, requires that 
measures implemented through provisions of EU law be appropriate for attaining 
the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and do not go beyond 
what is necessary to achieve them (Court of Justice, judgments of 5 June 2007 
C-170/04, ECLI:EU:C:2007:313, paragraph 50, and of 15 November 2012 
C-539/10 P and C-550/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:711, paragraph 122). 
20 It may be uncertain whether the prohibition on the importation by a private 
individual of a car purchased by a private individual in Russia is appropriate and 
necessary to effectively thwart Russian abilities to continue the aggression against 
Ukraine (see, to that effect: General Court, judgment of 20 December 2023, 
T-233/22, ECLI:EU:T:2023:828, paragraph 50 et seq.). It is also not apparent in 
the case at issue to what extent the sale of the vehicle in question in Russia to the 
applicant and its subsequent importation into the Union could have generated 
significant revenues for Russia thereby enabling its actions destabilising the 
situation in Ukraine. The applicant has submitted without contradiction that the 
seller did not have to pay any taxes on the purchase price received. 
21 If the answer to the first question in the negative, the question arises as to whether 
Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the 
registration, permitted thereunder, of a vehicle which was on the territory of the 
Union on 19 December 2023, also applies to a motor vehicle which is not covered 
by Article 3i(3ab) or (3ac) of Regulation No 833/2014 and whose importation or 
introduction into the Union is prohibited under Article 3i(1) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 and the competent customs authority must lift the seizure of the 
vehicle in question despite that prohibition. 
22 Although Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014 was only incorporated by 
Article 1(10)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2878 of 18 December 2023 (OJ 
L 2023/2878) with effect from 19 December 2023, that provision may in principle 
be applicable in the case at issue. It may be a procedural provision which merely 
requires that the vehicle in question was already in the territory of the Union on 
19 December 2023. 
23 However, it is uncertain whether the application of Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 could lead to the result desired by the applicant, namely that the 
defendant principal customs office be required to lift the seizure of the vehicle so 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 9. 2024 – CASE C-619/24 
 
8  
that it can be subsequently registered. Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation No 833/2014 
merely provides that the prohibition in Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 is 
not to prevent the registration in a Member State of a vehicle that was already in 
the territory of the Union on 19 December 2023. Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 may be without prejudice the possible existence of a prohibition 
under Article 3i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 and the customs authority’s 
associated power to seize a motor vehicle. 
24 The foregoing also appears to suggest that Article 3i(3ad) of Regulation 
No 833/2014 only applies to the cases referred to in Article 3i(3ab) and 3ac of 
Regulation No 833/2014, which was also incorporated by Article 1(10)(a) of 
Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2878 of 18 December 2023 (OJ L 2023/2878). 
That conclusion is also supported by the second and third sentences of recital 9 to 
Regulation (EU) 2023/2878, according to which the Member States are manifestly 
only authorised to regularise the situation of cars from Russia which are already in 
the territory of the Union in the cases referred to in Article 3i(3ab) and (3ac) of 
Regulation (EU) No 833/2014. 
[…]