Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2024:933
Date: 2024-11-07
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Free movement of goods;Internal market - Principles;Freedom to provide services;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-503/23 – 1 
Case C-503/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
7 August 2023 
Referring court: 
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
26 July 2023 
Applicant: 
Centro di Assistenza Doganale (CAD) Mellano Srl 
Defendants: 
Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli – Agenzia delle Dogane – 
Direzione Interregionale per la Liguria [, il Piemonte e la Valle 
d’Aosta] 
Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Rules governing the activity of customs assistance centres (centri di assistenza 
doganale; CAD). Action brought by a CAD before the Tribunale amministrativo 
regionale per il Piemonte (Regional Administrative Court, Piedmont) against the 
decision of the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies 
Authority) rejecting that CAD’s application for authorisation to carry out customs 
operations at a place other than that of the competent customs office. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of recital 21 and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, of 
Articles 10 and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC, and of Articles 56 to 62 TFEU 
regarding territorial limitations on the CAD’s ability to operate. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-503/23 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, in conjunction with 
recital 21, be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision (Article 3(3) of 
Ministerial Decree No 549/1992) and a national practice, which impose a 
restriction on the ability of the CAD – Customs assistance centres to operate at an 
‘authorised place’ within the Regional / Interregional / Interprovincial directorate 
where they have their registered office, preventing them from expanding 
throughout the national territory? 
2. Must Articles 10 and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision 
(Article 3(3) of Ministerial Decree No 549/1992) and a national practice, which 
impose a restriction on the ability of the CAD – Customs assistance centres to 
operate at an ‘authorised place’ within the Regional / Interregional / 
Interprovincial directorate where they have their registered office, preventing 
them from expanding throughout the national territory and, at the same time, 
reserving that right to operate throughout the national territory solely to customs 
agents? 
3. Must Articles 56-62 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a legislative 
provision (Article 3(3) of Ministerial Decree No 549/1992) and a national 
practice, which impose a restriction on the ability of the CAD – Customs 
assistance centres to operate at an ‘authorised place’ within the Regional / 
Interregional / Interprovincial directorate where they have their registered office, 
preventing them from expanding throughout the national territory and, at the same 
time, reserving that right to operate throughout the national territory solely to 
customs agents? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
TFEU, and in particular Articles 56 to 62 thereof; 
Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, and in particular Articles 10 
and 15 thereof; 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, and in particular recital 21 
thereof, as well as Articles 18 and 139 thereof; 
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, and in particular Article 115 thereof. 
CENTRO DI ASSISTENZA DOGANALE MELLANO (CUSTOMS ASSISTANCE CENTRE MELLANO) 
 
3 
Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union 
Judgments in Cases C-293/14, C-475/11, C-384/08, C-470/11, C-265/12, 
C-159/12, and Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
- Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 23 gennaio 1973, n. 43 – Approvazione 
del testo unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia doganale (Decree No 43 of 
the President of the Republic of 23 January 1973 approving the Consolidated 
Laws on Customs) 
Article 47(3) of that decree provides that ‘the appointment as a customs agent 
shall authorise the submission of customs declarations throughout the national 
territory’. 
- Decreto del Ministro delle finanze 11 dicembre 1992, n. 549 – Regolamento 
recante la costituzione dei centri di assistenza doganale (Decree No 549 of the 
Minister of Finance of 11 December 1992 – Regulation establishing customs 
assistance centres) 
Article 1(1) of that decree provides that ‘customs agents who have been registered 
for at least three years with the professional association … and practice their 
profession without being restricted by any form of employment relationship may 
set up capital companies, known as CAD (centri di assistenza doganale (customs 
assistance centres)), with a minimum share capital of ITL 100 million, the sole 
purpose of which is to provide customs assistance (…)’. 
Article 3(3) of that decree provides that ‘the approved companies referred to in 
Article 1(1) shall carry on their activities within the territorial jurisdiction of the 
customs department in which they have their head office and may operate in 
association with equivalent companies with registered office and jurisdiction in 
other territories of different departmental directorates and set up European 
Economic Interest Groupings (EEIG) as provided for in Regulation (EEC) 
No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 (…)’. 
- Legge 25 luglio 2000, n. 213 – Norme di adeguamento dell’attività degli 
spedizionieri doganali alle mutate esigenze dei traffici e dell'interscambio 
internazionale delle merci (Law No 213 of 25 July 2000 – Rules for adapting the 
activity of customs agents to changes in the requirements of trades and 
international trade in goods) 
Article 3(5) of that law provides that ‘the CAD may, under the simplified 
procedures, present the goods, in addition to the spaces and places in which the 
customs operations, referred to in Article 17 of the Consolidated Law on Customs 
approved by Decree No 43 of the President of the Republic of 23 January 1973, 
are to be carried out, also in the places, warehouses or storage premises of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-503/23 
 
4  
persons on whose behalf they operate from time to time and in which the goods 
are stored, provided that those places, warehouses or storage premises are situated 
within the territorial jurisdiction of the customs authority for which they are 
authorised to operate’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant company, whose registered office is situated in Cuneo, is a CAD 
which carries out customs operations on behalf of its customers. That registered 
office is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Directorate II for 
Liguria, Piedmont and Val d’Aoste of the Customs and Monopolies Authority, 
which is the defendant administration in the main proceedings. 
2 As part of its business activities, the applicant entered into an agreement with a 
German company to carry out customs operations concerning the United 
Kingdom. 
3 In that regard, the applicant submitted an application to the defendant Regional 
Directorate seeking authorisation for the approval of a place other than the 
customs office, in order that it be able to carry out customs operations in a 
warehouse situated in the province of Vicenza. That warehouse, unlike the 
applicant’s registered office, did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of that 
Regional Directorate. 
4 By decision of that Regional Directorate, the applicant’s application was rejected 
pursuant to Article 3(3) of Ministerial Decree No 549/1992, according to which 
the CAD may operate exclusively in the territory of the customs department where 
they have their registered office; in the present case, that department is that of the 
Regional Directorate in question. 
5 The applicant company brought an action against that decision to reject its 
application before the Regional Administrative Court, Piedmont, the referring 
court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 In support of its request, the applicant asserts, in particular, that the contested 
decision is contrary to recital 21 and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, 
as well as Directive 123/2006/EC. 
7 In the contested decision, the defendant states that the national law does not 
permit, for the purposes of carrying out customs operations, the approval of a 
place other than the customs office outside the territorial jurisdiction of the 
competent Regional Directorate. According to that decision, although, according 
to Article 47(3) of Presidential Decree No 43/1973, a customs agent is authorised 
to carry out customs operations throughout the national territory, that provision 
CENTRO DI ASSISTENZA DOGANALE MELLANO (CUSTOMS ASSISTANCE CENTRE MELLANO) 
 
5 
does not, however, apply to the activity of a customs agent acting as a member of 
a CAD. In other words, a customs agent who does not operate as a member of a 
CAD may carry out customs operations throughout the national territory, whereas 
a customs agent acting as a member of a CAD may carry out customs operations 
only within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Directorate in which the 
head office of that CAD is situated. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, 
on the basis of Ministerial Decree No 549/1992, the CAD is set up by customs 
agents. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 In the first place, the referring court takes the view that the customs rules of the 
European Union, in particular Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, does 
not permit any territorial limitation to be placed on the exercise of customs 
brokerage services. Consequently, according to that court, the domestic legal 
system, in particular Article 3(3) of Ministerial Decree No 549/1992 and 
Article 3(5) of Law No 213/2000, does not appear to be consistent with EU law. 
9 In the second place, the referring court observes that Article 3(3) of Ministerial 
Decree No 549/1992 prohibits the applicant company, as a CAD, from operating 
through a local unit and a warehouse situated outside the jurisdiction of the 
Regional Directorate of the Customs and Monopolies Authority where its head 
office is located, with the result that that provision introduces restrictions on the 
ability to operate through agencies, subsidiaries or branches; this appears to be 
contrary to Article 10(4) of Directive 2006/123, which enables the provider to 
have access to the service activity, or to exercise that activity, throughout the 
national territory, including by means of setting up agencies, subsidiaries, 
branches or offices, except where a specific authorisation or a limitation of the 
authorisation to a certain part of the territory for the pursuit of an activity is 
justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest; however, in the 
present case, the referring court is unable to see any such reason. 
10 Furthermore, according to the referring court, where the places to be assigned to 
customs operations are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional 
Directorate in which the CAD’s head office is situated, Article 3(3) of Ministerial 
Decree No 549/1992 amounts to a prohibition on having more than one 
establishment in the same national territory, despite the fact that the conditions of 
necessity and proportionality laid down in Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123 are 
not satisfied, and is therefore an infringement of that provision. 
11 The Court has already held that the territorial limitation of authorisation to pursue 
a service activity constitutes, within the meaning of Articles 10 and 15 of 
Directive 2006/123/EC, a restriction on the freedom of establishment of service 
providers. According to the referring court, that finding is not called into question 
by the fact that Article 3(3) of Ministerial Decree No 549/1992 provides that the 
CAD may act in aggregate form (in association with equivalent companies, with 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-503/23 
 
6  
the same corporate purpose, or by setting up a European Economic Interest 
Grouping – EEIG) in order to be able to provide the services outside the territory 
in which they have their registered office. Both the association with equivalent 
companies and the setting-up of an EEIG could result in significant economic and 
management burdens affecting exclusively the CAD, despite the principle, 
established by the Union Customs Code, of freedom of representation for customs 
purposes, in the form of both direct and indirect representation. 
12 In the third place, the referring court expresses doubts as to whether Article 3(3) 
of Ministerial Decree No 549/1992 is compatible with Articles 56 to 62 TFEU, on 
the ground that the territorial limitation on the ability of the CAD to carry out 
operations appears to constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services, 
since it places the CAD in an objectively unfavourable position compared to other 
operators. 
13 Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the referring court does not consider that 
the exercise by a CAD of its activity outside the territorial limits mentioned above 
could undermine the technical and professional requirements envisaged for that 
activity and, therefore, the continuity of the service. 
14 The referring court states that the national legislation in force could lead to a 
distortion within the European market with regard to the free movement of goods 
and persons, in so far as that legislation would restrict the free movement of 
services within the Member States and between Member States, in the light of 
both Directive 2006/123 and Articles 56 to 62 TFEU. 
15 As regards the possibility of referring questions for a preliminary ruling and, in 
particular, the existence of cross-border interest, the referring court, in the first 
place, emphasises the potential effects that the national system at issue could have 
on persons established in other Member States, where those persons wish to 
benefit from the freedom to provide services, and, in the second place, points out 
that the applicant’s activity in the specific case involves two Member States (Italy, 
as the State of the provider of the service, and Germany, as the State of the 
recipient of the service). 
16 Lastly, the referring court requests that the expedited procedure provided for in 
Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice be applied, on the 
basis of the relevance of the questions at issue, which are of principle, and of the 
fact that the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings is subject only to the 
decision of the Court.