Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:229
Date: 2009-04-02
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Protection against illicit commercial practices
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment Common commercial policy – Protection against illicit commercial practices – Additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America – Regulation No 2193/2003 (Council Regulation No 2193/2003, Recital 6 and Arts 2(1), 4(2) and 5) Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2193/2003 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America must be interpreted in a manner consistent with its wording, namely that products for which it can be demonstrated that they are already on their way to the European Community on the date of entry into force of that regulation, namely 17 December 2003, and whose destination cannot be changed, are not to be subject to the additional duty. Article 4(2), the wording of which is unambiguous, is consistent with the system established by Regulation No 2193/2003. Traders must be able to rely on the fact that products they have exported from the United States to the Community prior to the date of publication and of entry into force of that regulation will not be subject to the additional customs duties imposed by that regulation. By contrast, that expectation is not legitimate with regard to products which were exported after that date in so far as traders could not, as of that date, have been unaware that additional customs duties would be applicable under the provisions of that regulation. Consequently, recital 6 in the preamble to that regulation, which provides that products for which it can be proved that they have been exported from the United States to the Community prior to the date of first application of the additional customs duties, namely 1 March 2004, should not be subject to those duties, cannot be relied on to interpret Article 4(2) of that regulation in a manner clearly contrary to the wording of that provision. (see paras 15, 18-20, operative part)