Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:414
Date: 2026-05-21
Language of the case: Czech

Translation C-626/24 – 1 
Case C-626/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
24 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
17 September 2024 
Applicant: 
PRAGON s.r.o. 
Defendant: 
Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, Inspektorát v Praze 
  
ORDER 
The Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) has ruled […] in the 
case of the applicant: PRAGON s.r.o. […] v the defendant: Státní zemědělská a 
potravinářská inspekce, Inspektorát v Praze, (State Agriculture and Food 
Inspection Authority, Prague Inspectorate), […] with respect to an action seeking 
protection from the defendant’s unlawful intervention, in proceedings concerning 
an appeal in cassation by the applicant against the judgment of the Městský soud v 
Praze (Prague City Court) of 12 October 2023, ref. no. 11 A 214/2021-208, 
as follows: 
I. The following question is hereby submitted to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Does Article 34 TFEU, having regard to Article 36 TFEU and Article 9(7) of 
Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to 
ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and 
welfare, plant health and plant protection products, preclude national 
legislation that imposes on a recipient of food supplements from another 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-626/24 
 
2  
Member State the general obligation to report, no later than 24 hours in 
advance of their arrival at their place of destination, and provide the 
information required for carrying out a risk analysis and planning official 
controls? 
[…] Grounds: 
I. Background to the proceedings 
1 On 7 June 2021, the defendant initiated a control of the applicant pursuant to 
Paragraph 5(2)(a) of zákon č. 225/2012 Sb., o kontrole (kontrolní řád) (Law 
225/2012 on controls (Code on Controls), directed at compliance with the 
obligations that arise from vyhláška č. 172/2015 Sb., o informační povinnosti 
příjemce potravin v místě určení (Decree 172/2015 on the reporting obligation of 
a recipient of foodstuffs at their place of destination), in the version applicable 
until 31 August 2023 (‘Decree 172/2015’). The decree implements zákon č. 
110/1997 Sb., o potravinách a tabákových výrobcích (Law 110/1997 on foodstuffs 
and tobacco products) (‘the Law on Foodstuffs’). The Law on Foodstuffs sets out 
in Paragraph 3d(3) an obligation on the operators of food businesses to inform the 
competent supervisory authorities about the arrival of selected types of food from 
another European Union (EU) Member State or from a third country. 
2 In the applicant’s case, the control focused on the safety of food supplements. 
Among other things, the applicant was of the view that the control could not be 
conducted as the decree lays down obligations that are contrary to EU law, namely 
the freedom of the free movement of goods. The applicant argued that the fact that 
the decree was contrary to EU law was supported by the circumstance that the 
European Commission is conducting proceedings against the Czech Republic 
concerning the decree for failure to comply with an obligation arising from EU 
law, pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (‘the TFEU’). 
3 Those proceedings were initiated against the Czech Republic by the European 
Commission under No INFR(2016)4222. The Commission sent a formal notice on 
24 January 2019, stating that the national regulation of official controls 
concerning food safety was not compliant with EU law. Specifically, the case 
concerns the obligation for operators to systematically notify in advance the 
arrival of selected foodstuffs at their place of destination. According to the 
Commission, that is incompatible with the harmonised framework established by 
EU legislation. The Commission considers that the obligation to report the arrival 
of goods from another Member State must not be systematic. On the contrary, the 
reporting of the arrival of such goods must depend on a specific request of the 
competent authority and must be submitted only to the extent strictly necessary for 
the organisation of official controls. The Commission’s criticism is based on a 
breach of Article 9(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official 
activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on 
PRAGON 
 
3 
animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products. The most 
recent step in the pre-trial stage of the proceedings was the Czech Republic’s 
reply to the additional reasoned opinion of November 2021. The Commission has 
not taken any further steps since then. 
4 The applicant contested the control described in paragraphs 1 and 2 by an action 
seeking protection from unlawful intervention, which the Prague City Court 
dismissed by judgment of 6 October 2022, ref. no. 11 A 214/2021-99. 
Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal in cassation. The Supreme 
Administrative Court granted that appeal, annulling the judgment of the City 
Court by judgment of 10 May 2023, ref. no. 8 As 239/2022-140. The City Court 
had reached an erroneous conclusion that conducting controls on the basis of a 
decree that is contrary to EU law could not constitute an unlawful intervention. 
Hence, the SAC required the City Court to consider whether the decree is in line 
with EU law and whether it should have been applied in this case. 
5 Following the delivery of the judgment of annulment, the City Court considered 
the case again. By the judgment referred to above in the heading, it dismissed the 
action whereby the applicant sought a declaration that a control conducted on the 
basis of Decree 172/2015 is unlawful. When assessing the case, it acted primarily 
on the basis of a communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which it 
had requested in the proceedings. It concurred that the requirement of the prior 
reporting of the arrival of certain types of food is compliant with Article 9(7) of 
Regulation 2017/625. The proceedings conducted by the European Commission 
did not show that the Czech Republic had breached EU law because they were 
still at the pre-trial stage. According to the City Court, both conditions required by 
Regulation 2017/625 had been met: prior notice for the purpose of the 
organisation of official controls and the minimum extent necessary. In terms of 
the second condition, proportionality was shown by the fact that the reporting 
obligation does not pertain to all foodstuffs, but only to selected categories, the list 
of which changes based on a current risk assessment. Hence, that is not a blanket 
requirement, but one that is targeted. The reporting obligation applies only to 
information required for conducting a risk analysis, which the obliged entities 
have at their disposal. The report must be made via a web form no later than 
24 hours before the arrival of the goods. That is less onerous compared to the 
former legal rules, which provided for a reporting obligation 48 hours in advance. 
Without that information, on the other hand, it would not be possible to comply 
with the obligation of regular official controls without prior notice, as required by 
Article 9(2) and (4) of Regulation 2017/625. The City Court concluded that the 
reporting obligation has direct support in the text of the regulation cited. Hence, 
the control did not concern compliance with an obligation that was contrary to EU 
law. 
6 The applicant (‘the complainant’) challenged that judgment by an appeal in 
cassation, objecting that the reporting required pursuant to Decree 172/2015 is 
beyond the extent of what is strictly necessary. The decree manifestly breaches the 
fundamental principle of the free movement of goods among EU Member States, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-626/24 
 
4  
not third countries. As a consequence, food supplements cannot be delivered to 
the Czech Republic on the day they are ordered, but at least one day later, in order 
to comply with non-customs barriers that have been created by administrative 
means. Furthermore, that amounts to discrimination on the basis of the origin of 
the goods as foodstuffs that are located on the territory of the Czech Republic can 
be placed on the market immediately, while foodstuffs located outside the Czech 
Republic cannot. Entities in the position of food enterprises in the Czech Republic 
also face discrimination. Entities from other Member States which do not apply 
the decree thereby gain a clear competitive advantage over the complainant, who 
thereby incurs damage. That, in turn, has an impact on the costs to consumers. 
II. Applicable legislation 
II. A. European Union legislation 
7 According to Article 34 TFEU, quantitative restrictions on imports and all 
measures having equivalent effect are to be prohibited between Member States. 
8 According to Article 36 TFEU, Article 34 is not to preclude prohibitions or 
restrictions on imports justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or 
public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; 
the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological 
value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions 
or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination 
or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States (emphasis added). 
9 It follows from recital 37 of Regulation 2017/625 that without prejudice to 
traceability requirements laid down in sectorial legislation, and to the extent 
strictly necessary for organising official controls, operators should be able, in 
exceptional circumstances, to be required by the competent authorities of a 
Member State to report the arrival of animals and goods from another Member 
State. 
10 It follows from Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625 that to the extent strictly 
necessary for the organisation of the official controls, Member States of 
destination may require operators that have animals or goods delivered to them 
from another Member State to report the arrival of such animals or goods. 
11 The provisions of Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625 replaced the second 
sentence of Article 3(6) of Regulation 882/2004, which provided as follows: To 
the extent strictly necessary for the organisation of the official controls, Member 
States may ask operators who have goods delivered to them from another Member 
State to report the arrival of such goods. 
II.B. National legislation 
12 According to Paragraph 3d(3) of the Law on Foodstuffs, the operator of a food 
company taking delivery of foodstuffs specified in an implementing legal 
PRAGON 
 
5 
regulation from another European Union Member State or a third country at 
the place of destination shall report to the supervisory authority that is competent 
pursuant to Paragraph 16(4) or (5) about their arrival pursuant to an 
implementing legislative provision which, on the basis of a risk analysis in 
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, lays down the type of foods, the date, the scope, 
and the reporting method, to the extent strictly required for the organisation of 
official controls. 
13 Paragraph 1 of Decree 172/2015 states as follows: 
(1) In relation to directly applicable European Union legislation, this Decree 
regulates the scope of the reporting obligation for an operator of a food company 
at the place of destination (‘the recipient of food at the place of destination’). 
(2) This decree applies to 
(a) Fresh fruit of the following kinds 
1. peaches, including nectarines; 
2. pears; 
3. apples; 
4. plums and prunes; 
5. oranges; 
6. bananas; 
7. table grapes; 
(b) Fresh vegetables of the following kinds  
1. onions and garlic; 
2. carrots and celeriac; 
3. tomatoes, peppers, and cucumber; 
4. cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli; 
(c) early potatoes and late potatoes; 
(d) breadseed poppy; 
(e) food supplements; 
(f) foodstuffs of animal origin except 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-626/24 
 
6  
1. fresh fishery products, live bivalves, univalves, echinoderms, and 
tunicates intended for human consumption; 
2. collagen and natural and collagen casings for food production. 
(3) This decree applies only to cases where the place of destination is the place 
of first reception, including any first treatment or handling in the Czech Republic 
of the foodstuff specified in Paragraph 2. 
14 According to Paragraph 2(1) of Decree 172/2015: 
(1) The recipient of foodstuffs from another European Union Member State or 
third country at their place of destination shall, in the case of foodstuffs referred 
to in Paragraph 1(2)(a) to (e) and of a place of destination referred to in 
Paragraph 1(3), report, through the information system of the State Agricultural 
and Food Inspection no later than 24 hours prior to the arrival of the foodstuff 
at the place of destination, the following 
(a) the type of foods arriving at the place of destination; 
(b) the quantity of the food arriving at the place of destination; 
(c) the European Union Member State or third country, the name and 
address of the operator of the food company delivering the foodstuff to the 
place of destination; 
(d) the name, address, and identification number of the place of 
destination and of the recipient of the foodstuff at the place of destination; 
and 
(e) the date of arrival of the foodstuff at the place of destination. 
15 Pursuant to Paragraph 2(1)(g) of Law 110/1997 on foodstuffs and tobacco 
products, a food supplement is a food the purpose of which is to supplement 
regular foods and that is a concentrated source of vitamins and minerals or other 
substances with a nutritional or physiological effect contained in foods, separately 
or in combination, which is intended for direct consumption in small, measured 
quantities. 
III. Analysis of the question referred 
16 The referring court is aware that proceedings are currently being conducted under 
Article 258 TFEU in order to assess the conformity of Decree 172/2015 with EU 
law, and that the subject of the dispute in the present case is a reporting obligation 
solely in relation to food supplements. However, the assessment of that narrower 
question requires that the broader question be answered, which is whether the 
obligation to report to a supervisory authority every arrival of the foods set out in 
the decree from another Member State, even though potentially risky, 24 hours in 
PRAGON 
 
7 
advance, is in line with EU law, if the domestic delivery of foods of the same risk 
category is not reported. 
17 If that reporting obligation were not to conform to EU law, there would be no 
reason to examine specifically the individual kinds of foods that are listed in the 
decree. 
18 The free movement of goods between Member States is a fundamental freedom of 
the TFEU. It is expressed, among other things, in the prohibition, set out in 
Article 34 TFEU, of quantitative restrictions on imports between Member States 
and all other measures having equivalent effect (judgment of the Court of Justice 
of 18 June 2019, C-591/17, Austria v Germany, paragraph 119 and the case-law 
cited therein). The prohibition of measures of equivalent effect applies to all the 
rules of Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, 
actually or potentially, intra-community trade (judgment of the Court of Justice of 
11 July 1974, C-8/74, Dassonville, or of 15 March 2007, C-54/05, Commission v 
Finland, paragraph 30). The mere fact that an importer is discouraged from 
introducing or placing goods on the market in a Member State constitutes an 
obstacle to the free movement of goods (judgment of the Court of Justice of 
16 November 2000, C-217/99, Commission v Belgium, paragraph 18, and of 
7 June 2007, C-254/05, Commission v Belgium, paragraph 30). 
19 In connection to Decree 172/2015, that means that the food listed therein that 
originates in the Czech Republic may be placed by their recipient on the market 
without undue delay and without having to comply with any reporting obligation. 
However, if identical goods are ordered from another Member State, including 
one in the immediate proximity of the border of the Czech Republic, it must 
comply with the reporting obligation set out in the decree 24 hours before their 
arrival in the Czech Republic. That involves more complex planning, as an order 
may only be delivered 24 hours after the reporting obligation has been met. 
Furthermore, that involves an expense of time and money for the person 
complying with the reporting obligation. 
20 On the basis of the above, the Supreme Administrative Court is inclined to take 
the view that the reporting obligation arising from Paragraph 3d(3) of the Law on 
Foodstuffs, as implemented by Decree 172/2015, may discourage the operator of a 
food enterprise from introducing or placing the food concerned on the market in 
the Czech Republic. In that case, that would constitute a measure having 
equivalent effect for the purposes of Article 34 TFEU. 
21 National legislation that constitutes a measure having an equivalent effect to 
quantitative restrictions may, however, be justified on one of the public-interest 
grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or by an imperative requirement (judgment of 
the Court of Justice of 5 February 2004, C-270/02, Commission v Italy, 
paragraph 21). That is an exception from the general rule set out in Article 34 
TFEU, which must be narrowly interpreted (judgment of the Court of Justice of 
19 November 2020, C-663/18, B.S. and C.A., paragraph 87). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-626/24 
 
8  
22 As one of the legitimate grounds for permitting a measure with equivalent effect, 
Article 36 TFEU specifically refers to the ‘protection of health and life of 
humans’ (as does the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2015, 
C-354/14, Capoda Import-Export, paragraph 43). At the same time, however, a 
measure having equivalent effect can be justified in that way only if it is 
appropriate for securing the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go 
beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (judgment of the Court of Justice of 
3 July 2019, C-387/18, Delfarma, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited therein). 
23 The justification of a measure having equivalent effect with the requirement of the 
protection of heath cannot, therefore, be absolute. As Article 36 TFEU adds, it 
must not be a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on 
trade between Member States. That principle of proportionality requires that the 
power of the Member States to prohibit or restrict imports of products from other 
Member States be restricted to what is necessary in order to achieve a legitimately 
pursued goal of the protection of health. The exception laid down in that article 
therefore cannot apply to national legislation if the health and life of humans can 
be protected equally effectively by measures less restrictive of intra-Community 
trade (judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2002, C-172/00, Ferring, 
paragraph 34). 
24 The relationship between Articles 34 and 36 TFEU is accordingly reflected in 
Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625, which provides for a reporting obligation of 
the recipient of foodstuffs but requires that it be proportionate. Furthermore, 
recital 1 thereof states that the TFEU requires a high level of protection of human 
health to be ensured in the definition and implementation of Union policies and 
activities. The achievement of that objective should, inter alia, be pursued via 
measures which have as their final objective the protection of human health. 
From that the referring court infers that one of the main objectives of the official 
controls introduced by Regulation 2017/625 is the protection of human health. 
Hence, it is evident that the reporting obligation of a recipient of foodstuffs from 
another Member State, laid down in Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625, is aimed 
at achieving the same objective. 
25 The question remains whether the reporting obligation to the extent laid down by 
Decree 172/2015 is proportionate. In other words, whether there is a comparable 
method of protecting the health and life of humans that would interfere less in the 
free movement of goods in the EU than the method laid down by Decree 
172/2015. That is, whether every delivery of the food specified in the decree from 
another Member State, albeit potentially risky, must be reported 24 hours in 
advance to a supervisory authority if the national delivery of food of the same risk 
category need not be reported. 
26 In exercising their assessment obligation pertaining to the protection of health, 
Member States must adhere to the principle of proportionality and restrict their 
means to what is necessary to attain the aim of protecting health (judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 14 July 1983, C-174/82, Sandoz, paragraph 18). If Member 
PRAGON 
 
9 
States invoke proportionality under Article 36 TFEU, they are obliged to 
demonstrate in each case that their legislation is required to effectively protect the 
interests specified in that provision, and, in particular, that the placing of the 
products concerned on the market without prior notice constitutes an actual risk to 
health. 
27 The Court of Justice has assessed the proportionality of the reporting obligation of 
a recipient of foodstuffs from another Member State for carrying out official 
controls only under circumstances different from those in the present case. Those 
were veterinary controls introduced by Directive 89/662 concerning veterinary 
checks in intra-Community trade, with a view to the completion of the internal 
market, which was replaced by Regulation 2017/625. In similar fashion to 
Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625, Article 5(3)(c) of that directive provided that 
operators who have products delivered to them from another Member State or 
who completely divide up a batch of such products must, if so requested by the 
competent authority, report the arrival of products from another Member State, 
to the extent necessary to carry out the checks pursuant to the Directive. With 
respect to that reporting obligation, the Court of Justice stated that that was a 
system of controls based on inspection of the goods in the Member State of 
dispatch. Its purpose was to replace inspection in the Member State of destination 
and to allow for the free movement of goods in conditions similar to those of an 
internal market. It therefore concluded that considerations related to the need to 
protect public health cannot justify the duty of prior reporting imposed on 
importers of products from other Member States by national regulation (judgment 
of the Court of Justice of 20 October 2005, C-111/03, Commission v Sweden, 
paragraph 51). 
28 The Court of Justice ruled in that manner, despite the fact that it was not a 
question of a systematic reporting obligation to provide a prior report in advance 
of each delivery of the goods concerned, as in the present case, but rather a report 
upon a request from the competent supervisory authority. That case differed from 
the present one precisely because of the emphasis on maintaining control of the 
goods only in the Member State of dispatch. According to the Supreme 
Administrative Court, however, it should be possible reach a conclusion that a 
national reporting obligation is contrary to European Union law, even in a 
situation when the goods are not inspected at the place of origin, as was the case 
in Case C-111/03. 
29 It is evident from the text of Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625 that a certain 
reporting obligation of the recipient of foodstuffs from another Member State is 
presumed. It is questionable, however, to what extent that obligation can be 
systematic. In addition to the condition of it being to an ‘extent strictly necessary 
for organising official controls’, recital 37 states that the reporting of the arrival of 
goods may be required ‘in exceptional circumstances’. That requirement, 
however, is not reflected in the text of Article 9(7) itself. However, the Supreme 
Administrative Court is of the view that the rules contained in the regulation must 
be interpreted in accordance with its recitals. This rather leads to the conclusion 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-626/24 
 
10  
that a reporting obligation should not apply across the board, to all deliveries of 
selected types of food from other Member States. 
30 Another aspect is the question of the scope of the reporting obligation. For 
example, as measures less restrictive of the free movement of goods, a reporting 
obligation could be set only at the time of the arrival of the goods in the Member 
State of destination. That would at least partially reduce the logistical expenses 
linked with the requirement to make a prior report. Or the obligation to report 
could target current risks, for example, with a view to the occurrence of diseases 
or infections in a certain period, meaning that the obligation might be general but 
of a lesser extent, or it might not be a systematic requirement at all, but, rather, an 
obligation aimed only at specific deliveries of foodstuffs from other Member 
States. Indeed, it is the systematic nature for which the European Commission 
criticises the Czech Republic in the proceedings conducted under ref. no. 
INFR(2016)4222. Last but not least, there is the possibility of reporting the arrival 
of foodstuffs on the basis of a request from the supervisory authority, as was the 
case in Case C-111/03, but without control of the foodstuffs in the Member State 
of dispatch. 
31 The Supreme Administrative Court does not, however, rule out the possibility that 
the Court of Justice will find that the reporting obligation in the extent set by 
Decree 172/2015 is proportionate for achieving the protection of human health. 
With a prior report there is a greater chance of intercepting a contaminated or 
otherwise non-standard product. That conclusion is confirmed, according to the 
referring court, by Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/625, which states that official 
controls are to take place regularly, with appropriate frequencies determined on a 
risk basis. It follows from paragraph (4) of the same article that, in principle, 
official controls are to be performed without prior notice (from the supervisory 
authority (note by the SAC)). If, however, the reporting obligation were to be 
linked to a specific request by a supervisory authority, such a request could, in a 
way, constitute prior notice of an official control in the material sense, which 
would be contrary to Article 9(4) of Regulation 2017/625. 
32 According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the timely provision of information 
about the arrival of foodstuffs is essential for an inspection team to be able to 
arrive at the destination while the goods are still present there. Without such a 
prior report, the shipment would often no longer be present at the destination, 
having been distributed further, or having been already processed, which is due, 
in particular, to the short shelf life of cooled foodstuffs and long distribution 
chains. Especially for foodstuffs that are perishable, which are distributed quickly 
and may quickly reach a large number of consumers, it is essential that a control 
can be made at the very start of the distribution chain, in order to prevent a risk to 
the health of a large number of persons (as is evident from the reconciliation of 
comments on the draft decree amending Decree 172/2015, see paragraph 35 
below). 
PRAGON 
 
11 
33 In the light of the conclusions set out in the present order, the referring court has 
doubts as to whether a systematic obligation laid down by national legislation is 
proportionate for the achievement of the declared objective, first and foremost in 
and of itself. As the Supreme Administrative Court stated in paragraph 16 above, 
in order to answer the preliminary question it is first necessary to establish 
whether the reporting obligation is in general compliant with European Union law. 
If that is not the case, it cannot be appropriate in relation to food supplements. In 
other words, doubts as to the conformity of the reporting obligation with EU law 
also apply in relation to food supplements. According to the referring court, there 
are, however, still greater doubts concerning food supplements. 
34 In the case of other foodstuffs listed in the decree, for example, fresh fruit, 
vegetables, poppy seeds, potatoes, or selected products of animal origin, the 
conformity of the reporting obligation with the purpose of Regulation 2017/625 is 
plausible. That could be the case owing to their more perishable nature or being 
affected by various infections and pesticide residues. That corresponds to the 
grounds given by the Ministry of Agriculture, referred to above, which explicitly 
refer to perishable foodstuffs. 
35 The nature of food supplements, however, is very different. It is immediately 
obvious that they are distinct from the foodstuffs concerned by the reporting 
obligation set by Decree 172/2015. They differ from fresh food or food of animal 
origin in many respects, whether it be the requirements in terms of their shelf life, 
transport, storage, form, or usability. In that context, the referring court states that 
on 1 September 2024 Decree 235/2024, amending Decree 172/2015, as amended 
by Decree 141/2017, came into force. That amendment narrowed the scope of the 
reporting of the arrival of shipments from 22 monitored items to five. The 
obligation in relation to food supplements has, however, been retained. The 
explanatory memorandum states as grounds the potential presence of anabolic 
substances, drugs, hormones, and other prohibited substances or by the fact that 
the declaration of the substances on the packaging does not correspond to reality 
or that the permitted content of an analysed substance is exceeded. Other reasons 
may include the presence of contaminants, such as heavy metals or aromatic 
hydrocarbons. In addition to the above, food supplements may also contain 
vitamins and minerals that may have special harmful effects solely if taken to 
excess as part of the general nutrition, the composition of which is unforeseeable 
and cannot be monitored (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-174/82, 
paragraph 17). 
36 The question, however, arises as to whether these criteria are sufficient to justify a 
reporting obligation that only applies to food supplements from other Member 
States but not identical products which are already present in the Czech Republic. 
Again, there arises the question of the proportionality of the reporting obligation, 
in particular in connection with the requirement of a report of their arrival 
24 hours in advance. In the case of food supplements, an official control is not 
required within such a short period of arrival as for perishable foods. Thus, the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-626/24 
 
12  
grounds given by the Ministry of Agriculture for adopting the amendment to the 
regulation do not apply to food supplements. 
IV. Conclusion 
37 On the basis of the preceding assessment, the Supreme Administrative Court 
concludes that, in order to decide in the present case, it is necessary to answer the 
question of whether the Czech legal rules on the reporting obligation for the 
recipient of foodstuffs at the place of destination constitutes a measure with an 
effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction justifiable by the public health 
protection requirement. In other words, whether the reporting obligation 
concerned in this case is compatible with the framework of the free movement of 
goods laid down by EU law. 
38 As follows from the above, the Court of Justice has yet to interpret a similar 
reporting obligation. To the extent to which the interpretation of Article 9(7) of 
Regulation 2017/625 and Article 34 in conjunction with Article 36 TFEU is of 
significance to the present case, it cannot therefore be inferred that the matter 
constitutes an acte éclairé, that is, an issue that may be interpreted in full on the 
basis of the existing case-law of the Court of Justice. Furthermore, the Supreme 
Administrative Court has not found that this issue may be interpreted on the basis 
of the principles of general interpretation such as to make the issues outlined so 
unambiguous that they could be deemed to constitute an acte clair. 
[…]