Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:296
Date: 2025-04-30
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Free movement of goods;Commercial policy;Approximation of laws;Customs Cooperation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Translation C-330/24 – 1 
Case C-330/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
6 May 2024 
Referring court: 
Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) 
Date of decision to refer: 
25 April 2024 
Applicant: 
Celní jednatelství Zelinka s. r. o. 
Defendant: 
Generální ředitelství cel 
  
O R D E R  
The Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic) […] 
has ruled in the case of the applicant: Celní jednatelství Zelinka s. r. o., […] v 
the defendant: Generální ředitelství cel, […] with respect to the defendant’s 
decision of 21 November 2022, […] in proceedings concerning the applicant’s 
appeal in cassation challenging the judgment of the Městský soud v Praze (Prague 
City Court, Czech Republic) of 13 July 2023, ref. no. 10 Af 2/2023-57, 
as follows: 
I. The following question is hereby submitted to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Must the term ‘omyl’ [error] in [the Czech version of] Article 116(7) of 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code be interpreted as 
meaning that a customs debt is to be reinstated only in the event that the 
repayment of customs duty occurred due to an unintentional act on the part 
of the customs authority, or can error under that article extend to an 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2024 – CASE C-330/24 
 
2  
incorrect assessment by the customs authority as to the tariff classification of 
the goods? 
[…] 
Grounds: 
I. Background of the case 
[1] Celní jednatelství Zelinka s. r. o. (‘the applicant’) imports AXIS electronic 
products, of the S20xx series, (‘the goods’) to the European Union for release 
under the customs procedure of free circulation. The applicant originally classified 
the goods under the tariff code 8521 90 00 90, which corresponds to a duty rate of 
8.7%. The Celní úřad pro hlavní město Prahu (Customs Office for the City of 
Prague) assessed the duty for the applicant corresponding to the declared customs 
nomenclature code, which amounted to 1 541 018 Czech koruny (CZK). 
[2] Subsequently, the applicant filed an application with the Customs Office for 
the City of Prague for a change in the tariff classification of the goods to 
subheading 8517 62 00 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, which corresponds to 
a duty rate of 0%. The application included a request for a repayment of duty. The 
applicant included in its application the binding information on tariff classification 
of goods from the Celní úřad pro Olomoucký kraj (Customs Office for the 
Olomouc Region) […], whereby the same goods were classified, at the request of 
another entity, under the tariff nomenclature code 8517 62 00 00. The Customs 
Office for the City of Prague granted that application and repaid the duty of 
CZK 1 541 018 to the applicant. 
[3] On 8 June 2021, the Celní úřad pro Jihomoravský kraj (Customs Office for 
the South Moravian Region) initiated an inspection of the applicant following the 
release of goods, focusing on a verification of the tariff classification of goods 
declared in customs declarations. During that inspection, it concluded that the 
goods should actually have been classified under customs nomenclature code 
8521 90 00 90, as they were classified originally. By means of subsequent 
payment assessments, it assessed the applicant for customs duty totalling 
CZK 1 541 018. The applicant appealed against the subsequent payment 
assessments to the Generální ředitelství cel (General Customs Directorate), which 
granted the appeal, stating in the grounds of its decision that the situation should 
be addressed by means of the reinstatement of a customs debt pursuant to 
Article 116(7) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (‘the 
Customs Code’), which permits the reinstatement of a customs debt where a 
customs duty repayment or remission has been granted in error. 
[4] The Customs Office for the City of Prague subsequently rendered nine 
decisions on 17 March 2022 to reinstate the customs debt in an amount totalling 
CZK 1 541 018, as it concluded that, in the case at hand, the customs duty had 
been repaid due to an error committed by the customs authority, which had 
CELNÍ JEDNATELSTVÍ ZELINKA 
 
3 
incorrectly classified the applicant’s goods under customs nomenclature code 
8517 62 00 00, corresponding to a customs rate of 0%. The applicant appealed 
against those decisions to the General Customs Directorate which, by decision of 
21 November 2022, dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Customs 
Office for the City of Prague. 
[5] The applicant challenged the decision of the General Customs Directorate by 
an action filed with the Prague City Court (‘the City Court’), which dismissed it. 
The City Court concluded that Article 116(7) of the Customs Code is applicable to 
the case in question since that provision pertains to substantive defects in 
decisions made by customs authorities. Some language versions of the Customs 
Code use the term ‘error’ (English) and ‘errore’ (Spanish), which in legal 
language has more of a connotation with [the Czech word] pochybení (fault) 
rather than omyl (error). In the Czech translation of the provision, the broader 
concept of neoprávněně (unduly), namely, in contravention of the law, has been 
replaced with the narrower concept of omylem (in error), namely, wholly 
unintentionally. According to the City Court, Article 116(7) of the Customs Code 
therefore applies to situations when a customs debt has been repaid unduly, as has 
happened in the present case. 
[6] The applicant has lodged an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the 
City Court with the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the term ‘omyl’, 
as used in [the Czech version of] Article 116(7) of the Customs Code, does not 
apply to cases when customs duty has been repaid ‘neoprávněně’ (unduly), but 
only to cases when it has been repaid ‘omylem’ (in error). The purpose of the 
provision is to prevent situations where a customs repayment or remission has 
occurred due to an unintentional act of a customs authority, rather than to remedy 
a situation where a customs authority has assessed the relevant facts incorrectly. 
Article 116(7) of the Customs Code must be interpreted restrictively. If the only 
limitation to its application were the three-year limitation period laid down in 
Article 103 of the Customs Code, then every time customs duty has been repaid, 
the entity concerned would have to wait for several years to be certain that it 
would not again be liable for that repaid duty. 
[7] In its statement on the appeal in cassation, the General Customs Directorate 
has stated that Article 116(7) of the Customs Code must be interpreted with the 
use of other methods than solely by reference to the literal linguistic terms, and, 
hence, it is to apply to the case at hand, where customs duty has been repaid on 
the basis of an incorrect assessment by a customs authority in classifying goods 
under a specific customs nomenclature code. 
II. Applicable European Union law 
[8] The Czech language version of Article 116(7) of the Customs Code states: 
‘Jestliže celní orgány clo vrátí nebo prominou omylem a není-li původní celní 
dluh promlčen podle článku 103, původní celní dluh se obnoví. V takových 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2024 – CASE C-330/24 
 
4  
případech je nutno jakýkoli úrok zaplacený podle odst. 5 druhého pododstavce 
nahradit.’ 
[In English: Where the customs authorities have granted repayment or remission 
in error, the original customs debt shall be reinstated in so far as it is not time-
barred under Article 103. In such cases, any interest paid under the second 
subparagraph of paragraph 5 shall be reimbursed]. 
[9] Paragraph 7 follows on from paragraph 1, which regulates the repayment or 
remission of customs, and which states: 
‘Subject to the conditions laid down in this Section, amounts of import or 
export duty shall be repaid or remitted on any of the following grounds: 
(a) overcharged amounts of import or export duty; 
(b) defective goods or goods not complying with the terms of the contract; 
(c) error (in Czech, ‘chyba’) by the competent authorities; 
(d) equity. 
Where an amount of import or export duty has been paid and the 
corresponding customs declaration is invalidated in accordance with 
Article 174, that amount shall be repaid.’ 
[10] Article 79(5) of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code 
(‘Regulation 450/2008’), which was in effect before the issuance of the customs 
code applicable to the present case, provided: ‘Where the competent authority has 
granted repayment or remission in error (in Czech, omylem), the original customs 
debt shall be reinstated in so far as it is not time-barred under Article 68.’ 
[11] Article 242 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 
establishing the Community Customs Code (‘Regulation 2913/92’) stated that 
‘where a customs debt has been remitted or the corresponding amount of duty 
repaid in error (in Czech, neoprávněně), the original debt shall again become 
payable. Any interest paid under Article 241 must be reimbursed’. 
III. Analysis of the question referred  
[12] The Supreme Administrative Court has concluded that, in order to assess 
whether the reinstatement of the customs debt that the customs authorities 
performed in the applicant’s case was correct, it is essential to interpret the term 
‘omyl’ as used in the Czech language version of Article 116(7) of the Customs 
Code. However, the interpretation of that term is disputed by the parties. The 
applicant holds that a reinstatement of a customs debt pursuant to that provision 
may occur only if a repayment or remission of customs duty was granted by 
CELNÍ JEDNATELSTVÍ ZELINKA 
 
5 
means of an action by a customs authority which the authority never intended to 
perform. According to the General Customs Directorate and the City Court, a 
customs debt may be reinstated even in cases when customs duty was repaid or 
remitted unduly, namely, as a result of a mistake of the customs authority 
consisting of an incorrect assessment of the question of the tariff classification of 
goods under the customs nomenclature code. If the applicant is correct, its 
customs debt could not be reinstated. If the defendant is right, that debt could be 
reinstated, subject to other conditions, in particular, the limitation period. 
[13] From the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the 
CJEU’), the Supreme Administrative Court has found that the term ‘omyl’ (error) 
as used in the Customs Code, or in previous European Union regulations 
governing the same issues, has not been defined in any way. Even though the 
CJEU has used the term ‘omyl’ (error) in some of its judgments (for example, in 
its judgments of 20 October 2005, in Case C-468/03, Overland Footware, of 
5 October 2006, in Case C-100/05, ASM Lithography, or of 15 July 2010, in Case 
C-234/09, DSV Road), it did not use that term directly in relation to steps taken by 
customs authorities, but, rather, in relation to steps taken by an importer of goods. 
Even in those cases, however, the CJEU did not proceed directly to interpret that 
term. Nor is a definition of the term ‘omyl’ (error) on the part of the competent 
authorities found in the CJEU’s case-law in tax matters or in cases concerning 
subsidies. 
[14] In terms of similar concepts, the case-law of the CJEU interprets, for 
example, the term ‘incorrect and incomplete information’ as including substantive 
errors and omissions as well as errors in the interpretation of the applicable law 
(compare judgment of 16 October 2014, Case C-387/13, VAEX Varkens- en 
Veehandel, paragraph 50, and the case-law cited). At times, CJEU case-law 
interchanges the term in question with the term ‘chyba’ (error), which includes not 
only material errors, but also unintentional omissions and any declaration made in 
disregard of a customs rule (see judgment of 16 July 2020, Case C-97/19, Pfeifer 
& Langen GmbH & Co. KG, paragraph 54). Again, however, that case-law 
pertained to an error made by an importer of goods rather than by the customs 
authorities. 
[15] As for an error committed by the customs authorities, the CJEU stated in 
paragraph 32 of the judgment of 18 October 2007, in Case C-173/06, Agrover, 
that the nature of the error of the competent customs authorities ‘must be assessed 
in relation to the complexity or sufficient simplicity of the rules concerned and the 
period of time during which the authorities persisted in their error (Case 
C-499/03 P Biegi Nahrungsmittel and Commonfood v Commission [2005] ECR 
I-1751, paragraphs 47 and 48 and the case-law cited)’. Furthermore, the CJEU 
examined an error of the customs authorities in its judgment of 10 December 
2015, in Case C-427/14, Veloserviss, in which it stated that only errors attributable 
to acts of the competent authorities create entitlement to the waiver of subsequent 
recovery of customs duties. In that case, the importer can invoke legitimate 
expectations and good faith in the correctness of steps taken by the customs 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2024 – CASE C-330/24 
 
6  
authorities. That judgement, however, concerned the application of 
Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation 2913/92, not Article 242, which regulated the 
reinstatement of a customs debt. 
[16] Hence, the Supreme Administrative Court has found that the existing case-
law of the CJEU does not provide an answer to the question of how to interpret 
the term ‘omyl’ (error) within the meaning of [the Czech version] of 
Article 116(7) of the Customs Code. The Supreme Administrative Court tends to 
agree with the opinion of the General Customs Directorate and the City Court that 
a customs debt may be reinstated pursuant to that provision even if the error of the 
customs authority consisted of the authority carrying out an incorrect assessment 
in respect of the tariff classification of goods under a specific customs 
nomenclature code. That was undoubtedly the fact in the present case, as the 
Customs Authority for the City of Prague repaid customs to the applicant because 
it classified the applicant’s goods under an incorrect nomenclature code, which 
corresponds to a zero customs rate, on the basis of binding information on the 
tariff classification of goods from the Customs Office for the Olomouc Region, 
which subsequently proved to be incorrect and was also contradicted by 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/532 of 22 March 2021 
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, 
whereby the customs classification of those particular goods was harmonised 
across the EU as falling under customs nomenclature code 8521 90 00, which 
corresponds to a duty rate of 8.7%. 
[17] The interpretation of Article 116(7) of the Customs Code advanced by the 
applicant, that that article can be applied to cases only when a customs authority 
has repaid customs by means of a purely unintentional act, would entail a 
significant and undue restriction on the possibilities to use that article. In such a 
case, customs authorities could reinstate a customs debt only if they, for example, 
unintentionally repaid customs duty to the account of the incorrect entity or issued 
a decision on the repayment or remission of customs duty with respect to the 
wrong entity. The Supreme Administrative Court, however, holds that that was 
not the intention of the EU legislature. Even though Regulation 450/2008, which 
preceded the present Customs Code, also referred to ‘omyl’ (error) on the part of 
the customs authorities in the repayment or remission of customs duty as a 
condition for the reinstatement of a customs debt, it follows from the Czech 
language version of Article 242 of Regulation 2913/92, which preceded both of 
the regulations referred to above, that the condition for the reinstatement of a 
customs debt was the repayment of customs duty that was [in Czech] 
‘neoprávněné’ [‘in error’], namely the repayment of duty in breach of the law. It 
does not follow from the Customs Code or from other EU regulations governing 
the issue concerned that the EU legislature intended to restrict the condition for 
the reinstatement of a customs debt solely to cases where a duty has been repaid 
or remitted on the basis of unintentional acts of the customs authorities. The 
Supreme Administrative Court is, however, convinced that that is what the EU 
legislature would have done in the event that that condition were made stricter. 
CELNÍ JEDNATELSTVÍ ZELINKA 
 
7 
[18] Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court has found that, in certain 
language versions, Article 116(7) of the Customs Code does not make the 
reinstatement of a customs debt conditional on an unintentional error by a customs 
authority, as is the case in the Czech language version, but, rather, they use terms 
closer to the Czech term ‘pochybení’ (fault), which has a broader meaning. That is 
the case, for example, in the English version of the customs code, which uses the 
term ‘error’, which in legal language is closer to the Czech terms ‘pochybení’ or 
‘chyba’). The Spanish version uses the term ‘errore’, the Portuguese 
‘erradamente’, and the French version of the provision uses the expression ‘ont 
accordé à tort’. The German version of the provision uses the word ‘unrecht’ 
which is closer to the Czech term ‘nesprávně’ (incorrectly) than ‘omylem’. From 
those language versions, the Supreme Administrative Court infers that the purpose 
of Article 116(7) of the Customs Code is to reinstate a customs debt in those cases 
where the customs authorities have not proceeded correctly in returning a customs 
duty, for example, where they have erred in classifying goods under a customs 
nomenclature code, as was the situation in the present case. 
[19] The Czech version of Article 116(7) of the Customs Code is, nevertheless, 
not the only one which uses a concept other than the term ‘pochybení’ or ‘chyba’. 
The Slovak version of the provision uses the term ‘omylom’ (in error), which fully 
corresponds to the Czech term ‘omyl’. The Polish version of the provision uses the 
term ‘omyłkowo’, while Article 116(1) of the Polish version of the customs code 
uses a different term, ‘błąd’, for an error of the customs authorities that warrants 
the repayment or remission of a customs duty. Hence, it cannot be said that the 
Czech version is the only one to differ from other language versions of the 
provision concerned. 
[20] According to the case-law of the CJEU, all the language versions of EU 
legislative acts are equally authentic, and hence the Supreme Administrative Court 
has not been able to base itself on the fact that certain language versions of 
Article 116(7) of the Customs Code have used the same term as that used in 
Article 242 of Regulation 2913/92. In the judgment of 6 October 1982, in Case 
C-283/81, Srl Cilfit, paragraph 18, the CJEU stated that ‘Community legislation is 
drafted in several languages and that the different language versions are all 
equally authentic’. (Czech translation by the Supreme Administrative Court). In 
its judgment of 19 April 2007, in Case C-63/06, UAB Profisa, paragraph 13, the 
CJEU summarised that case-law as follows: ‘According to settled case-law, the 
need for a uniform interpretation of the provisions of Community law makes it 
impossible for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation, but requires, 
on the contrary, that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions 
existing in the other official languages (Case 26/69 Stauder v Ulm [1969] 
ECR 419, paragraph 3; Case 55/87 Moksel [1988] ECR 3845, paragraph 15; and 
Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I-1605, paragraph 36).’ 
Similarly, in its judgment of 13 September 2018, in case C-287/17, Česká 
pojišťovna, a. s., v WCZ, spol. s r. o., paragraph 24, the CJEU stated: ‘It is settled 
case-law that the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law 
cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision or be given 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2024 – CASE C-330/24 
 
8  
priority over the other language versions. Provisions of EU law must be 
interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all EU 
languages (judgment of 6 June 2018, Tarragó da Silveira, C-250/17, 
EU:C:2018:398, paragraph 20).’ 
[21] Hence, the Supreme Administrative Court has not been able to determine 
which of the terms used in the different language versions of Article 116(7) of the 
Customs Code is the correct one and whether those language versions that use the 
term ‘omyl’ in that provision are not merely incorrect translations. Furthermore, 
the Supreme Administrative Court has found that the CJEU has yet to examine in 
its case-law the meaning of Article 116(7) of the Customs Code or of the articles 
that regulated that issue in the previous regulations. In addition, the CJEU has yet 
to interpret the term ‘omyl’. According to CJEU case-law, a national court or 
tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, 
which includes the Supreme Administrative Court, cannot be relieved of its 
obligation to approach the CJEU with a question concerning the interpretation of 
EU law that has arisen before it, unless it has established that the question raised is 
irrelevant or that the EU law provision in question has already been interpreted by 
the Court or that the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no 
scope for any reasonable doubt (see CJEU judgment of 6 October 2021, in Case 
C-561/19, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, and the older 
case-law cited therein, in particular the abovementioned CJEU judgment in Case 
C-283/81, Cilfit). 
[22] In the present case, the interpretation of the term ‘omyl’ within the meaning 
of Article 116(7) of the Customs Code is of the essence, as it is solely on the basis 
of that interpretation that the Supreme Administrative Court is able to assess 
whether the customs authorities were correct in reinstating the customs debt. 
According to the above considerations, that question cannot be deemed to be an 
acte éclairé, nor can it be viewed, given its ambiguity, as an acte clair. 
[…]