Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:215
Date: 2025-03-27
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Free movement of goods;Commercial policy;Approximation of laws;Customs Cooperation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

summary declaration, exit summary declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification by a person to the customs authorities, or the submission of an application for an authorisation or any other decision, shall render the person concerned responsible for all of the following: (a) the accuracy and completeness of the information given in the declaration, notification or application; (b) the authenticity, accuracy and validity of any document supporting the declaration, notification or application; (c) where applicable, compliance with all of the obligations relating to the placing of the goods in question under the customs procedure concerned, or to the conduct of the authorised operations. The first subparagraph shall also apply to the provision of any information in any other form required by, or given to, the customs authorities. Where the declaration or notification is lodged, the application is submitted, or information is provided, by a customs representative of the person concerned, as referred to in Article 18, that customs representative shall also be bound by the obligations set out in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.’ 4 Article 116 of that code, entitled ‘General provisions’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘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: … (c) error by the competent authorities; …’ 5 The wording of Article 119 of that code, entitled ‘Error by the competent authorities’, is as follows: ‘1. In cases other than those referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 116(1) and in Articles 117, 118 and 120, an amount of import or export duty shall be repaid or remitted where, as a result of an error on the part of the competent authorities, the amount corresponding to the customs debt initially notified was lower than the amount payable, provided the following conditions are met: (a) the debtor could not reasonably have detected that error; and (b) the debtor was acting in good faith. … 3. Where the preferential treatment of the goods is granted on the basis of a system of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the Union, the issue of a certificate by those authorities, should it prove to be incorrect, shall constitute an error which could not reasonably have been detected within the meaning of point (a) of paragraph 1. The issue of an incorrect certificate shall not, however, constitute an error where the certificate is based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter, except where it is evident that the issuing authorities were aware or should have been aware that the goods did not satisfy the conditions laid down for entitlement to the preferential treatment. The debtor shall be considered to be in good faith if he or she can demonstrate that, during the period of the trading operations concerned, he or she has taken due care to ensure that all the conditions for the preferential treatment have been fulfilled. …’ The Regional Convention 6 Article 1(1) of the Regional Convention lays down provisions on the origin of goods traded under the relevant agreements concluded between the contracting parties to that convention. 7 Appendix I to the Regional Convention concerns the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation. Title V of that appendix, entitled ‘Proof of origin’, includes Article 15 thereof, itself entitled ‘General requirements’. Paragraph 1 of that article provides: ‘Products originating in one of the Contracting Parties shall, on importation into other Contracting Parties, benefit from the provisions of the relevant Agreements upon submission of one of the following proofs of origin: (a) a movement certificate EUR.1, a specimen of which appears in Annex III a; …’ 8 Under Title VI of that appendix, entitled ‘Arrangements for administrative cooperation’, Article 31 thereof, itself entitled ‘Administrative cooperation’, provides: ‘1. The customs authorities of the Contracting Parties shall provide each other, through the European Commission, with specimen impressions of stamps used in their customs offices for the issue of movement certificates EUR.1 and EUR-MED, and with the addresses of the customs authorities responsible for verifying those certificates, origin declarations and origin declarations EUR-MED. 2. In order to ensure the proper application of this Convention, the Contracting Parties shall assist each other, through the competent customs administrations, in checking the authenticity of the movement certificates EUR.1 and EUR-MED, the origin declarations and the origin declarations EUR-MED and the correctness of the information given in these documents.’ 9 Article 32 of that appendix, which is also under Title VI thereof, is entitled ‘Verification of proofs of origin’ and provides: ‘1. Subsequent verifications of proofs of origin shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the importing Contracting Party have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of this Convention. 2. For the purposes of implementing the provisions of paragraph 1, the customs authorities of the importing Contracting Party shall return the movement certificate EUR.1 or EUR-MED and the invoice, if it has been submitted, the origin declaration or the origin declaration EUR-MED, or a copy of these documents, to the customs authorities of the exporting Contracting Party giving, where appropriate, the reasons for the request for verification. Any documents and information obtained suggesting that the information given on the proof of origin is incorrect shall be forwarded in support of the request for verification. 3. The verification shall be carried out by the customs authorities of the exporting Contracting Party. For this purpose, they shall have the right to call for any evidence and to carry out any inspection of the exporter’s accounts or any other check considered appropriate. 4. If the customs authorities of the importing Contracting Party decide to suspend the granting of preferential treatment to the products concerned while awaiting the results of the verification, release of the products shall be offered to the importer subject to any precautionary measures judged necessary. 5. The customs authorities requesting the verification shall be informed of the results thereof as soon as possible. These results shall indicate clearly whether the documents are authentic and whether the products concerned may be considered as products originating in one of the Contracting Parties and fulfil the other requirements of this Convention. 6. If in cases of reasonable doubt there is no reply within ten months of the date of the verification request or if the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products, the requesting customs authorities shall, except in exceptional circumstances, refuse entitlement to the preferences.’ The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling 10 In February 2022, C/C, acting as the indirect customs representative for the importing company Best-Epil Kft., applied to the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Csongrád-Csanád Vármegyei Adó- és Vámigazgatósága (Csongrád-Csanád Provincial Tax and Customs Directorate; ‘the first-tier customs authority’) for the release for free circulation of fresh mandarins dispatched from Kosovo and originating in Türkiye according to the movement certificates EUR.1 issued by the Kosovo customs authorities (‘the movement certificates at issue’). 11 Following that release for free circulation, the first-tier customs authority, on 5 May 2023, ordered a subsequent verification, during which it found that the movement certificates at issue did not comply with the provisions of the Regional Convention or those of Commission notice 2021/C 418/12 concerning the application of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin or the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the Contracting Parties to this Convention (OJ 2021 C 418, p. 24; ‘the Commission notice’), on the ground that the goods concerned, as agricultural products, could not benefit from preferential treatment in the context of relations between the European Union, Kosovo and Türkiye. Furthermore, such treatment could not be certified by the Kosovo customs authorities. 12 In addition, the first-tier customs authority, by decision of 16 August 2023, set the total amount of customs duties to be levied subsequently at 2 580 000 forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 6 350), and ordered C/C to pay that sum. 13 On 18 August 2023, C/C submitted an application to the first-tier customs authority for remission of the customs duty in accordance with, in particular, Article 116(1)(c) of the Customs Code. In support of that application, C/C claimed that the conditions of Article 119(3) of that code were met, in so far as, since the movement certificates at issue had been issued by the Kosovo customs authorities on the basis of the system of administrative cooperation established by the Regional Convention, it was necessary to hold that the error vitiating those certificates had to be regarded as not ‘reasonably [detectable]’ within the meaning of Article 119(1)(a) of that code, without there being any need to carry out other checks in that regard. 14 Since the first-instance customs authority rejected C/C’s application, the latter lodged a complaint with the Appeals Directorate, which upheld the decision of the first-instance customs authority. 15 In its decision, the Appeals Directorate found, inter alia, that the movement certificates at issue had not been issued on the basis of the system of administrative cooperation established by Article 31 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention, with the result that the exception provided for in Article 119(3) of the Customs Code did not apply and that it was therefore necessary to examine, in accordance with Article 119(1)(a) of that code, whether C/C could reasonably have detected the error made by the Kosovo customs authorities. 16 According to the Appeals Directorate, although the customs authority in Kosovo had made an error, C/C could reasonably have detected it, since it carried on its professional activity in the field of customs, had the necessary authorisations in that field and had sufficient knowledge and experience concerning customs clearance. Accordingly, it should have detected the fact that the movement certificates at issue were vitiated by an error, since that error was clearly apparent from those documents. 17 C/C brought an action before the Veszprémi törvényszék (Veszprém High Court, Hungary), which is the referring court, requesting that it annul the decision of the Appeals Directorate and the decision of the first-instance customs authority, and order the latter to open a new procedure. 18 C/C claimed that Article 119(1) and (3) of the Customs Code applied to its situation, since the movement certificates at issue had been issued in the context of ‘administrative cooperation’ within the meaning of Article 31 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention. As part of such administrative cooperation, the customs authorities undertake to provide each other with contact addresses and impressions of stamps. In the present case, the fact that the Kosovo customs authorities used, for the purpose of issuing the movement certificates at issue, the specimens of the stamps provided for the issue of movement certificates EUR.1 demonstrates the fact that those customs authorities were acting in the context of the administrative cooperation referred to in Article 119(3) of the Customs Code. 19 In addition, C/C maintained that the Hungarian customs authorities should have initiated the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention and referred the matter to the Kosovo customs authorities so that they could verify the accuracy of the content of the movement certificates at issue. C/C submitted that it could reasonably and in good faith take the view that the Kosovo customs authorities had issued the movement certificates at issue by correctly applying the provisions of that convention. 20 Before the referring court, the Appeals Directorate claimed that, under the Regional Convention and the Commission notice, the customs authorities of the exporting country, Kosovo, could not lawfully certify that the place of preferential origin of the goods was Türkiye. According to that directorate, the verification provided for in Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention may be carried out whenever the customs authorities of the importing contracting party have ‘reasonable doubts’ as to, inter alia, the authenticity of the documents. However, that directorate never harboured doubts regarding the movement certificates at issue, since it was possible to establish with certainty that those documents were vitiated by an error and not suitable for certifying the place of origin, with the result that there was no need to initiate the procedure for verifying proofs of origin referred to in that provision. Furthermore, the fact that the Kosovo customs authorities used specimens of stamps used for the issue of movement certificates EUR.1 cannot be regarded as a circumstance proving the existence of ‘administrative cooperation’. 21 In addition, the Appeals Directorate noted that, since C/C had sufficient professional knowledge and experience in the field of customs, it could reasonably have detected the error vitiating the movement certificates at issue. Moreover, under Article 119(1)(b) of the Customs Code, the question of C/C’s good faith must be examined separately from the question whether it could reasonably have detected that error, those conditions being cumulative. Accordingly, the fact that C/C acted in good faith does not preclude the possibility that it could reasonably have detected that error. Lastly, the Appeals Directorate submitted that, under Article 15(2)(b) of the Customs Code, the lodging of a customs declaration rendered the person who carried it out responsible for the authenticity, accuracy and validity of any document supporting the declaration. 22 The referring court states that it is common ground between the parties to the main proceedings that the goods concerned, as agricultural products, could not fall within the scope of diagonal cumulation, with the result that the movement certificates at issue were vitiated by an error in their content. Accordingly, the first-tier customs authority took its decision without initiating the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention and did not ask the Kosovo customs authorities to verify the correctness of the proof of origin. The first-tier customs authority did not have ‘reasonable doubts’ as to the correctness of the movement certificates at issue, but rather the certainty that those certificates had been issued in breach of the provisions of that convention and that the customs authorities of the exporting contracting party could not certify the origin enabling the goods in question to benefit from preferential treatment. 23 According to the referring court, if, when an error is detected in the proof of origin, the customs authorities of the importing contracting party must necessarily and mandatorily initiate the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention and it follows from that procedure that the proof of origin is incorrect, it must be found, in accordance with Article 119(3) of the Customs Code, that the applicant in the main proceedings could not reasonably have detected the error. 24 That court found that it is not clear from Article 119(3) of the Customs Code whether, when those customs authorities detect an error in the proof of origin, they may find that that proof is incorrect without initiating that verification procedure. 25 In those circumstances, the Veszprémi törvényszék (Veszprém High Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Article 119(3) of [the Customs Code] be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a proof of origin is declared to be incorrect without recourse to the procedure laid down in Article 32 of Appendix I to [the Regional Convention]?’ Consideration of the question referred 26 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the first subparagraph of Article 119(3) of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which, where the movement certificate issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union is vitiated by a manifest error of law relating to the possibility for those goods to benefit from preferential treatment under that convention, the customs authorities of the importing contracting party may legitimately establish that error without initiating the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of the Regional Convention. 27 The first subparagraph of Article 119(3) of the Customs Code provides that, in the context of preferential treatment of the goods which is granted on the basis of a system of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union, the issue of an incorrect certificate by those authorities constitutes an error which, in principle, cannot reasonably be detected within the meaning of Article 119(1)(a) of that code. 28 As regards the Regional Convention, Article 1(1) thereof lays down provisions concerning the origin of goods traded under the relevant free trade agreements concluded between the contracting parties to that convention, which include the European Union, the Republic of Türkiye and Kosovo. Appendix I to that convention sets out the general rules concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’. Article 15(1) of that convention provides, in particular, that a movement certificate EUR.1 is among the proofs of origin which may be submitted when originating products are imported into other contracting parties. 29 Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention, entitled ‘Verification of proofs of origin’, appears under Title VI thereof, itself entitled ‘Arrangements for administrative cooperation’. That Article 32 provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that ‘subsequent verifications of proofs of origin shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the importing Contracting Party have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of this Convention’. 30 As is apparent, in particular, from paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of that Article 32, the subsequent verification of proofs of origin, which is justified by reasonable doubts which the customs authorities of the importing contracting party have as to the authenticity of those documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of other requirements of the Regional Convention, presupposes administrative cooperation between those customs authorities and those of the exporting contracting party, within the meaning of Article 31 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention, taken as a whole. 31 The mere issue of a movement certificate pursuant to the Regional Convention does not, in itself, imply administrative cooperation within the meaning of that provision taken as a whole. 32 In addition, as the Hungarian Government and the Commission essentially submit in their written observations, it does not follow from Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention that the customs authorities of the importing contracting party are under an obligation systematically to initiate a procedure for verifying proofs of origin where they establish the existence of an error relating to the possibility for those goods to benefit from preferential treatment under that convention. 33 Accordingly, there is no obligation to initiate such a procedure where those customs authorities are in a position to establish at the outset, without any investigation being necessary, that the proof of origin is incorrect. That would be the case, in particular, if it were established that the movement certificate issued by the customs authorities of the exporting contracting party is vitiated by a manifest error of law relating to the possibility for those goods to benefit from preferential treatment under the Regional Convention. 34 Furthermore, according to the note entitled ‘Article 33 – Refusal of preferential treatment without verification’ in Communication 2007/C 83/01 from the Commission concerning the explanatory notes concerning the pan-Euro-Mediterranean protocols on rules of origin (OJ 2007 C 83, p. 1), the proof of origin is considered ‘inapplicable’ inter alia where the products to which the movement certificate EUR.1 or EUR-MED refers are not eligible for preferential treatment. In such a case, the certificate in question must accordingly be regarded as inapplicable, without it being necessary to contact the customs authorities of the exporting contracting party. 35 In the present case, the referring court stated that it was common ground between the parties to the main proceedings that, under the rules in force, diagonal cumulation was not applicable to the goods concerned in the main proceedings, namely fresh mandarins originating in Türkiye and dispatched from Kosovo to Hungary, with the result that the movement certificates at issue, issued by the Kosovo customs authorities, were vitiated by an error. 36 As regards the consequences of an error made by the competent customs authorities, Article 119(1) of the Customs Code provides that, where, as a result of such an error, the amount corresponding to the customs debt initially notified was less than the amount payable, an amount of import or export duty is to be repaid or remitted, provided that the debtor could not reasonably have detected that error and acted in good faith. Under the first subparagraph of Article 119(3) of that code, the issue, by the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union, of an incorrect certificate is deemed to constitute an error which could not reasonably have been detected, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, where the preferential treatment of the goods is granted on the basis of a system of administrative cooperation involving those authorities. 37 As the Commission has indicated, the purpose of those provisions is to protect the legitimate expectations of the debtor and to lay down the conditions under which errors made by the competent customs authorities give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of that debtor. 38 By contrast, those provisions and, in particular, the first subparagraph of Article 119(3) of the Customs Code are not intended to set out the conditions under which the administrative cooperation between the customs authorities concerned must be implemented. In fact, that provision merely classifies as not reasonably detectable an error vitiating a movement certificate issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union, where the preferential treatment of the goods is granted on the basis of a system of administrative cooperation involving those authorities. 39 Accordingly, that provision cannot, in itself, preclude the customs authorities of the importing Member State from finding that the movement certificate used as proof of the origin of goods is vitiated by a manifest error of law relating to the possibility for those goods to benefit from preferential treatment under the Regional Convention, without initiating the administrative cooperation procedure provided for in Article 32 of Appendix I to that convention. 40 So far as is relevant, it should be noted that, where a movement certificate issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union in connection with the preferential treatment of goods, outside a system of administrative cooperation, proves to be incorrect, the legal presumption laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 119(3) of the Customs Code, in accordance with which the issue of such a certificate is deemed to constitute an error which could not reasonably have been detected by the debtor, does not apply and it is therefore appropriate to ascertain whether or not, in practice, that debtor could reasonably have detected that error, as Article 119(1) of that code provides. 41 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that the first subparagraph of Article 119(3) of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention, must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which, where the movement certificate issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union is vitiated by a manifest error of law relating to the possibility for those goods to benefit from preferential treatment under that convention, the customs authorities of the importing contracting party may legitimately establish that error without initiating the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of the Regional Convention. Costs 42 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules: The first subparagraph of Article 119(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 32 of Appendix I to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin, approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2013/94/EU of 26 March 2012, must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which, where the movement certificate issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the European Union is vitiated by a manifest error of law relating to the possibility for those goods to benefit from preferential treatment under that convention, the customs authorities of the importing contracting party may legitimately establish that error without initiating the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of the Regional Convention. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Hungarian.