Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2026:351
Date: 2026-05-20
Language of the case: German

Translation T-685/24 – 1 
Case T-685/24 [Jelgratz] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
5 December 2024 
Referring court: 
Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
17 July 2024 
Applicant: 
A 
Defendant: 
Hauptzollamt 
      
      
FINANZGERICHT 
BERLIN-BRANDENBURG (FINANCE COURT, BERLIN-
BRANDENBURG, GERMANY) 
ORDER 
1 K 1123/23 
In the case 
A 
– Applicant – 
v 
Hauptzollamt 
      
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 7. 2024 – CASE T-685/24 
 
2  
– Defendant – 
concerning excise duty on tobacco, 
the Finance Court, Berlin-Brandenburg […] made the following order on the basis 
of a hearing on 17 July 2024 […]: 
ordered: 
I. […] [Suspension] 
II. Under the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the following 
questions are referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Must Article 32 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 
concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 
92/12/EEC (‘Directive 2008/118/EC’) (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12), (Acquisition by 
private individuals), be interpreted as precluding a national interpretation 
according to which ‘own use’ is excluded, irrespective of the quantity 
transported, in the event of the acquisition of tobacco products for the 
purpose of passing them on to another person, even if the passing on is done 
free of charge? 
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, 
Must Article 32 of Directive 2008/118/EC be interpreted as meaning that the 
concept of ‘own use’, taking into account the other criteria, in particular the 
quantity criterion, includes gifts to close relatives but not gifts to other 
persons? 
R e a s o n s: 
Facts of the case 
I. 
1 The applicant is challenging the assessment of excise duty on tobacco in respect 
of 800 cigarettes that he transported from Poland to Germany and that are 
intended for a third party. 
2 The applicant was checked by the defendant’s officials on 6 August 2022 upon 
entry into Germany from Poland. When asked about excise goods, the applicant 
stated that he was carrying cigarettes. During the check, 800 cigarettes bearing 
Polish tax stamps were found. The applicant stated that he was carrying the 
cigarettes for an acquaintance. He himself is a non-smoker. The defendant 
imposed tobacco excise duty amounting to EUR 144.17 and seized the cigarettes. 
According to the applicant, the value of the goods was EUR 135.83. 
JELGRATZ 
 
3 
3 After unsuccessful opposition proceedings, the applicant brought an action against 
the tobacco excise duty assessment and the seizure of the cigarettes. In the legal 
proceedings, the applicant claims, with reference to his submissions in the 
opposition proceedings, that the presentation of the facts in the excise duty 
assessment notice had been severely abridged or partially distorted, which was 
attributable to his limited language skills. In fact, he had purchased the cigarettes 
in Poland in order to give them as a gift to his father, who lived in the Federal 
Republic of Germany. He refers to the case-law of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal 
Fiscal Court, Germany) in its ruling of 8 September 2011, Case no. VII R 59/10, 
in which it was held that a private individual is acquiring cigarettes in another 
Member State for his or her own use also in cases where that person is 
transporting them into the tax territory him or herself in order to give them as gifts 
to family members. At the same time, the applicant submits that ultimately the 
subjective intention could hardly be reliably ascertained without objective and 
externally visible evidence. In any event, it would not be possible to disprove a 
claim on his part that he was carrying the cigarettes for personal consumption. 
4 The defendant opposes the action. The cigarettes were deemed to have been 
transported across the border for ‘commercial purposes’. It does not have to be 
clarified whether the cigarettes were intended for an acquaintance or for the 
father. It is clear that they were not intended to be used by the applicant himself 
for smoking as he had stated that he is a non-smoker. Such products are not 
exempt from excise duty if the acquisition of the products and the subsequent 
transport into the tax territory serve the purpose of giving the excise goods as a 
gift or for consumption by another private individual within the tax territory. This 
was unambiguously clarified by Paragraph 39(2) of the Tabaksteuerverordnung 
(Regulation on excise duty on tobacco; ‘the TabStV’), which came into force on 
1 July 2021. A strict interpretation of ‘own use’ is pursued, in which no distinction 
is made between ‘passing on’ and ‘gift giving in the absence of a contractual 
relationship’. 
Reasons 
II. 
5 […] [proceedings] 
6 The referring court division (‘the Chamber’) […] [proceedings] refers the 
questions set out in the operative part to the Court of Justice for a preliminary 
ruling pursuant to point (a) of the first paragraph, and the second paragraph, of 
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union because the 
interpretation of the concept of ‘own use’ in Article 32 of Directive 2008/118/EC 
raises doubts that have a bearing on the decision. 
7 In the view of the Chamber, the decision in the main proceedings hinges on the 
question of whether an acquisition for someone’s own use exempt from excise 
duty on tobacco is also present in cases where the tobacco products were acquired 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 7. 2024 – CASE T-685/24 
 
4  
for the purpose of giving them to another person, or whether it is permissible to 
assume that any intention to pass them on rules out own use. If the concept of 
‘own use’ were also to include gifts, the question arises as to what criteria are to 
be used to define a gift. May the group of beneficiaries be limited in a 
standardised manner to a dependent group of close family members or must gifts 
to other persons also be included? In that context, the concept of ‘own use’ under 
EU law is relevant, the interpretation of which is in doubt: 
8 2. Applicable EU law: 
9 Under Article 32 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 
concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 
92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12), with effect from 15 January 2009, applicable 
until 12 February 2023: 
(1) Excise duty on excise goods acquired by a private individual for his own 
use, and transported from one Member State to another by him, shall be 
charged only in the Member State in which the excise goods are acquired. 
(2) To determine whether the excise goods referred to in paragraph 1 are 
intended for the own use of a private individual, Member States shall take 
account at least of the following: 
(a) the commercial status of the holder of the excise goods and his reasons 
for holding them; 
(b) the place where the excise goods are located or, if appropriate, the 
mode of transport used; 
(c) any document relating to the excise goods; 
(d) the nature of the excise goods; 
(e) the quantity of the excise goods. 
(3) For the purposes of applying paragraph 2(e), Member States may lay down 
guide levels, solely as a form of evidence. These guide levels may not be 
lower than: 
(a) for tobacco products: 
– cigarettes: 800 items, 
(…) 
10 Under Article 33 of Directive 2008/118/EC: 
(1) Without prejudice to Article 36(1), where excise goods which have already 
been released for consumption in one Member State are held for commercial 
JELGRATZ 
 
5 
purposes in another Member State in order to be delivered or used there, 
they shall be subject to excise duty and excise duty shall become chargeable 
in that other Member State. 
For the purposes of this Article, ‘holding for commercial purposes’ shall 
mean the holding of excise goods by a person other than a private individual 
or by a private individual for reasons other than his own use and transported 
by him, in accordance with Article 32. 
11 With effect from 13 February 2023, Article 32 and Article 33 of Directive 
2008/118/EC were replaced by Article 32 and Article 33 of Council Directive 
(EU) 2020/262 of 19 December 2019 laying down the general arrangements for 
excise duty, (OJ 2020 L 58, p. 4), which entered into force on 18 March 2020. 
12 Directive 2020/262, recital 41: 
Excise duty levels for tobacco products and alcoholic beverages applied by 
Member States vary due to a number of factors, such as fiscal and public health 
policy and such divergences in some cases are significant. In this context, Member 
States should be able to contain risks, which are facilitating tax fraud, avoidance 
or abuse, threatening or undermining public policy or protection of health and life 
of humans. Therefore Member States should be able to take appropriate and 
proportionate measures enabling them to determine whether excise goods 
transported from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another 
Member State by a private individual were acquired by that private individual for 
his or her own use. 
13 3. Statement by the European Commission on the implementation of Article 32 of 
Directive 2008/118: 
‘The Commission recalls the importance of ensuring free movement of goods 
while ensuring the protection of public health. To secure this balance, it is 
necessary to clarify the existing rules and provisions of Article 32. (…) However, 
special rules apply in the case of goods subject to excise duty, such as alcoholic 
beverages and tobacco products. (…) To determine whether these products are for 
the own use of the traveller, Article 32(3) lists a number of criteria that Member 
States must take account of. “Own use” implies that the goods are held for private 
purposes of the traveller. This does not include any gifts for other people or goods 
intended to be used for commercial purposes.’ 
14 4. Applicable national law: 
15 Paragraph 23(1) of the Tabaksteuergesetz (Law on excise duty on tobacco; ‘the 
TabStG’) (in the version of 15 July 2009, applicable from 1 April 2010, applicable 
until 12 February 2023): 
If in cases other than those referred to in Paragraph 22(1) and in contravention of 
Paragraph 17(1) of [the TabStG (explanatory note from the court: namely without 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 7. 2024 – CASE T-685/24 
 
6  
bearing German tax stamps)] tobacco products are transported into or sent to the 
fiscal territory from another Member State in which they had been released for 
consumption (for commercial purposes), the excise duty is due upon first 
possession of the tobacco products for commercial purposes. The person liable for 
payment of excise duty is the person who supplies or holds the tobacco products 
and the recipient, as soon as he or she takes possession of them. (…) 
16 Paragraph 22 of the TabStG (in the version of 25 July 2014, applicable from 
31 July 2014, applicable until 12 February 2023): 
(1) Tobacco products that a private individual acquires for his or her own use in 
other Member States where they have been released for consumption and 
transports into the fiscal territory him or herself (for private purposes) are 
not subject to excise duty. 
(2) When assessing whether tobacco products are intended for own use in 
accordance with paragraph 1, the following criteria must be taken into 
account: 
1. the commercial status of the holder of the products and the reasons for 
holding them; 
2. the place where the tobacco products are located or the mode of 
transport used; 
3. any documents relating to the tobacco products; 
4. quality or quantity of the tobacco products. 
(3) (…) 
(4) The Bundesministerium der Finanzen [(Federal Ministry of Finance, 
Germany)] is empowered, in order to secure tax revenue, to define, by 
regulation not requiring the assent of the Bundesrat [(Federal Council, 
Germany)], the quantity of tobacco products pursuant to paragraph 1 for 
which there is a rebuttable presumption that they are not intended for a 
private individual’s own use. 
17 Under Paragraph 39 of the TabStV (in the version of 5 October 2009, applicable 
from 1 April 2010, applicable until 30 June 2021): 
If more than 800 cigarettes, (…) are transported into the fiscal territory for private 
purposes in accordance with Paragraph 22 of the Law, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that the tobacco products are being transported into the fiscal 
territory for commercial purposes (Paragraph 23 of the Law). 
18 Paragraph 39 of the TabStV (in the version of the Siebte Verordnung zur 
Änderung von Verbrauchsteuerverordnungen (Seventh regulation amending the 
JELGRATZ 
 
7 
regulations on excise duty) of 11 August 2021, published in the Bundesgesetzblatt 
(Federal Law Gazette), Volume 2021, Part I No. 55 of 20 August 2021, Article 1 
no. 40 letter (b), applicable from 1 July 2021, applicable until 28 October 2022): 
(1) If more than 800 cigarettes, (…) are transported into the fiscal territory for 
private purposes in accordance with Paragraph 22 of the Law, there is a 
rebuttable presumption that the tobacco products are being transported into 
the fiscal territory for commercial purposes (Paragraph 23 of the Law). 
(2) The passing on of tobacco products, even if it is free of charge, is not 
deemed to be for own use in accordance with Paragraph 22 of the Law, 
regardless of the quantity transported. 
19 The first sentence of Paragraph 85(1) of the Abgabenordnung (Tax Code; ‘the 
AO’) states: 
The tax authorities must assess and levy taxes uniformly in accordance with the 
law. In particular, they must ensure that taxes are not reduced (…). 
20 5. Case-law of the Court of Justice: 
21 Court of Justice, judgment of 23 November 2006, C-5/05, Joustra (ECLI:EU:C: 
2006:733): 
22 ‘(33) The Court has already held that, for Article 8 of the Directive to apply, a 
number of conditions must be satisfied. Thus, the products on which excise duty is 
chargeable must have been acquired by “private individuals” for “their own use” 
and transported “by them”. Those conditions should make it possible to establish 
that products on which excise duty is chargeable and which are acquired in one 
Member State and then transported to another Member State are held for strictly 
personal purposes (…) 
23 (35) As regards the first of those conditions, it is clear from the actual terms in 
which Article 8 of the Directive is couched that it requires that the products be 
intended for the personal use of the private individual who has acquired them and 
that it therefore excludes products acquired by a private individual for the use of 
other private individuals. The latter products cannot be considered to be held for 
strictly personal purposes by the private individual who has acquired them.’ 
24 Court of Justice, judgment of 12 May 2021, C-87/20, Hauptzollamt B (Caviar 
d’esturgeons) (ECLI:EU:C:2021:382): 
‘(37) Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second 
question is that Article 7(3) of Regulation No 338/97 must be interpreted as 
meaning that sturgeon caviar, when brought into the customs territory of the 
Union, may be regarded as a “personal or household item” within the meaning of 
that provision, when it is intended to be offered as a gift to a third party, provided 
that there is no evidence of a commercial purpose (…).’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 7. 2024 – CASE T-685/24 
 
8  
25 III. Relevance of the questions referred 
26 According to the Chamber, the decision in the main proceedings hinges on 
whether the concept of ‘own use’ in Article 32 of Directive 2008/118/EC may be 
interpreted as meaning that any intention to pass on the acquired tobacco products 
rules out acquisition for one’s own use, which is not subject to excise duty on 
tobacco, so that, in the case of intended passing on, only one of the criteria set out 
in Article 32(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC, namely the holder’s reasons for 
holding the items, irrespective of quantity transported, whether they are an 
intended gift to close relatives, or personal transport, is decisive for the 
assumption that products are held for commercial purposes within the meaning of 
the second sentence of Article 33(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC. 
27 IV. Legal assessment 
28 The origin of the excise duty on tobacco depends on the interpretation of the 
concept of ‘own use’ under Community law. The Chamber has doubts as to 
whether, where tobacco products are acquired by a private individual, an 
interpretation of the EU law concept of ‘own use’ in Paragraph 22 of the TabStG, 
which is taken from Article 32 of Directive 2008/118/EC, is permissible to the 
effect that, in the case of an acquisition for the purpose of passing those products 
on to another person, an acquisition for own use by the private individual 
transporting the tobacco products that is exempt from excise duty on tobacco must 
be ruled out. 
29 It is not disputed that the applicant acquired the cigarettes for the purpose of 
passing them on to another person. Pursuant to Paragraph 39(2) of the TabStV, 
which was enacted by the Federal Ministry of Finance in the form of a regulation 
with effect from 1 July 2021, he cannot be deemed to have acquired the products 
for his own use since the passing on of tobacco products, even if it is free of 
charge, is not considered own use under Paragraph 22 TabStG, regardless of the 
quantity transported. 
30 […] [Possible unconstitutionality of] Paragraph 39(2) of the TabStV […] 
31 Even if Paragraph 39(2) of the TabStV were unlawful on substantive grounds and 
had no general validity and binding effect, it nevertheless constitutes an 
instruction by the Federal Ministry of Finance which – until it is repealed or 
possibly until the customs offices stop applying it – like any other administrative 
instruction of a supreme authority is addressed to the customs officials of 
subordinate authorities and aims to ensure that the law is interpreted consistently 
and in a way that is viable in practice. 
32 According to the case-law of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal 
Constitutional Court, Germany), the courts are empowered to follow an 
interpretation of a law as expressed in an administrative rule, based on their own 
conviction (see BVerfG, decision of 31 May 1988, 1 BvR 520/83, 5 May 1988, 1 
JELGRATZ 
 
9 
BvR 520/83, Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Decisions of the 
Federal Constitutional Court) – BVerfGE – 78, 214, 232, paragraph 43). 
33 […] [To date, there have been no court decisions] regarding Paragraph 39(2) of 
the TabStV […]. 
34 As far as the legal position prior to the introduction of Paragraph 39(2) of the 
TabStV (in effect from 1 July 2021) is concerned, the Federal Fiscal Court, 
confirming the case-law of the referring court, has taken the view that excise 
goods are also acquired for the private purchaser’s use if they are intended to be 
given as a gift to another private individual due to close personal relationships 
with that individual. In the view of the Federal Fiscal Court, that applied in any 
event if the private individual and the recipient of the gift were related. 
Accordingly, anyone who buys gifts for family members on their own initiative is 
also thereby meeting their own needs. That is because they incur costs outside of a 
contractual relationship, for which they cannot expect to be reimbursed by a third 
party (see Federal Fiscal Court, decision of 8 September 2011, VII R 59/10, 
Sammlung der Entscheidungen des BFH (Collection of BFH decisions) –BFHE– 
234, 571, under 3.; decision of 28 June 2023, VII B 54/22, 
ECLI:DE:BFH:2023:B.280623.VIIB54.22.0). 
35 The decision of the referring court therefore depends on whether an interpretation 
of Paragraph 22 of the TabStG as determined in Paragraph 39(2) of the TabStV 
would be compatible with the EU directive at all. 
36 That is in doubt because, according to Article 32(2) of Directive 2008/118, the 
five criteria listed therein must be taken into account when examining an 
acquisition for own use, whereas Paragraph 39(2) of the TabStV limits the 
examination to one of the criteria, namely the holder’s reasons for possession, in 
such a way that, regardless of the other criteria, in particular regardless of the 
quantity of tobacco products, any intention to pass on the items leads to ‘own use’ 
being ruled out. In the fiscal courts’ case-law, the previous case-law of the Court 
of Justice, in particular in Cases C-5/05, Joustra, and C-87/20, Hauptzollamt B – 
Caviar d’esturgeons, has been understood as not precluding an interpretation 
according to which gifts are covered by own use. With regard to the judgment of 
the Court of Justice in Case C-5/05, Joustra, that is based on the fact that the 
judgment concerned a situation in which the excise goods were not intended as a 
gift but were to be passed on to other persons in return for a reimbursement of 
costs. It would appear that the Court of Justice has not yet ruled on whether the 
intended passing on of excise goods, in particular tobacco products, as a gift rules 
out an acquisition for own use or whether it can be viewed as such. 
37 Based on the interpretation of Paragraph 22 of the TabStG by the Federal Ministry 
of Finance pursuant to Paragraph 39(2) of the TabStV, the defendant principal 
customs office claims that the concept of ‘own use’ does not include gifts for 
other persons and, in addition, refers to the statement by the European 
Commission on the implementation of Article 32 of Directive 2008/118/EC. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 7. 2024 – CASE T-685/24 
 
10  
38 One argument in favour of such an interpretation being permissible is the fact that 
Paragraph 22 of the TabStG itself – adopting the wording in Article 32(2) of 
Directive 2008/118/EC – only stipulates that, among other things, the holder’s 
reasons for possessing the tobacco products must be taken into account when 
determining whether those products are intended for the holder’s own use. Neither 
Paragraph 22 of the TabStG nor Article 32 of Directive 2008/118/EC define in 
what way the reasons for possession are to be assessed or which reasons are an 
argument in favour of or against own use. However, the tax authorities and thus 
also the officials of the principal customs office are obliged pursuant to the first 
sentence of Paragraph 85(1) of the AO to assess and levy taxes uniformly in 
accordance with the law. Furthermore, the tax authorities are obliged to ensure 
that taxes are not reduced (second sentence of Paragraph 85(1) of the AO). 
39 When carrying out a check, customs officials are therefore obliged to make a 
decision on tax liability and seizure or tax exemption and release of the tobacco 
products. In their practice, customs officials therefore have a need for specific 
instructions regarding the enforcement of the law in the context of customs 
checks, which specify how to proceed with regard to certain reasons for 
possession in order to ensure that the law is enforced, when levying excise duties 
on tobacco products, in a manner that is uniform and thus predictable for the 
taxpayer. 
40 […] [on the power of administrative bodies to issue guidelines on the 
interpretation of a law]. 
41 The interpretation of the concept of own use by the Federal Ministry of Finance, 
according to which tobacco products are not deemed to have been acquired for a 
person’s own use if the person states that they were acquired to be passed on to 
another person, means that the assessment of excise duty in the context of a check 
can be handled uniformly. The fact that the item is to be passed on can easily be 
established on the spot based on information provided by the carrier. The legal 
consequence is clear and unambiguous and it fulfils the purpose of the TabStG in 
that it serves to secure tax revenue because it restricts a possible abuse of the own 
use rule by way of a statement that the cigarettes are intended as a gift for family 
members, good friends or colleagues. It also promotes the health policy objectives 
pursued by the TabStG because it prevents cheaper cigarettes from being brought 
into the country from abroad and thus has the effect of discouraging consumption. 
In addition, it avoids time-consuming and costly procedures to establish whether 
the assertion that items are being brought along for the persons named can be 
confirmed. 
42 Recital 41 of Directive (EU) 2020/262, which entered into force on 18 March 
2020, may be an argument in favour of such an interpretation being permissible. 
That recital makes it clear that, in recasting [Directive (EU) 2020/262], the 
Council of the European Union has given Member States a margin of discretion 
when transposing the directive to take account of the fact that the excise duty 
levels applied by Member States to, inter alia, tobacco products vary due to a 
JELGRATZ 
 
11 
number of factors such as fiscal policy and public health policy and such 
divergences in some cases are significant. According to recital 41, Member States 
have therefore been granted the power to contain, ‘in this context’, risks which are 
facilitating tax fraud, avoidance or abuse, threatening or undermining public 
policy or protection of health and life of humans. That is true in relation to Poland, 
where the cigarettes in the present case originate from, because cigarettes in 
Germany are approximately twice as expensive as in Poland. The defendant 
principal customs office refers, among other things, to the fact that 
Paragraph 39(2) of the TabStV is a measure adopted to implement Directive (EU) 
2020/262. However, the rules on the acquisition of excise goods by a private 
individual in Article 32 of Directive (EU) 2020/262 apply only from 13 February 
2023, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 57, and therefore not to the issue 
in the main proceedings in the present case where the potential excise duty claim 
arose on 6 August 2022. 
43 By contrast, the wording of Article 32(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC, according to 
which the determination of whether the excise goods are intended for a private 
individual’s own use depends in particular (but not exclusively) on the criteria set 
out in Article 32(2)(a) to (e), militates against the interpretation of the concept of 
own use in such a way that any passing on to third parties – that is to say, 
including passing goods on as a gift, whether to close family members or to other 
persons – should be excluded. The holder’s reasons for the possession of the 
excise goods therefore only constitutes one of several criteria for determining 
whether the case concerns own use. If it were solely a question of whether 
someone intended to pass on the goods to other persons, a weighing-up of the 
various criteria would no longer take place. 
44 For the same reason, the exclusion from tax-privileged own use of any tobacco 
products acquired for the purpose of passing them on could also be 
disproportionate because, if this were the case, the other criteria of Article 32(2) 
of Directive 2008/118/EC or Paragraph 22(2) of the TabStG, which are essentially 
equivalent to each other, are not taken into account. In particular, a small quantity 
of tobacco products and the intention to pass them on free of charge as a gift could 
no longer be taken into account in the assessment of own use, even though such 
passing on is not carried out for commercial purposes. Ultimately, that 
interpretation would also lead to the customs authorities always assuming that 
non-smokers intend to pass on the goods and that own use is therefore excluded. 
45 The empowerment of Member States, as set out in the second sentence of 
Article 32(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC, to define quantitative criteria in more 
detail is another argument against an interpretation of the concept of own use in 
such a way that if the intention is to pass on the purchased tobacco products, it is 
irrefutably assumed that there is no own use. Member States are empowered to lay 
down guide levels for the purposes of applying point (e) of paragraph 2, but 
explicitly solely as a form of evidence. Although it is stipulated that the guide 
level for tobacco products set by the Member States may not be lower than a 
quantity of 800 cigarettes, it is pointed out at the same time that the guide level is 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 7. 2024 – CASE T-685/24 
 
12  
only intended to provide ‘a form of evidence’. The Council therefore wanted to 
make sure that all other criteria are applied even if the guide level is exceeded or if 
quantities fall short of the guide level. That indicates that a limitation of own use 
to mere ‘own consumption’ could not be covered by the directive, as that would 
invalidate all other criteria. 
46 On the other hand, it must be taken into account that an extension of own use to 
tobacco products transported as gifts for other persons could lead to a 
disadvantage as far as enforcement is concerned because the assertion that the 
cigarettes are intended as a gift for a person not present may require further 
investigations to verify such assertion, and gaining certainty about the motive for 
the acquisition in the course of taking evidence would be impossible because it 
constitutes an internal fact. While that does not rule out the formation of a 
conviction on the part of the courts because internal facts are frequently elements 
of an offence and must be established by the courts, where necessary by inference 
from external facts, it would, however, result in an investigatory effort that is 
impracticable for mass processing at the border and comparatively high in relation 
to the amount of excise duty levied, which, unlike in criminal law, might appear 
disproportionate due to the comparatively minor intervention that ultimately 
consists of prohibiting the purchase of tobacco products in another Member State 
for another person. By contrast, it could be in the interests of both taxpayers and 
the public finance sector to interpret the law in such a way that it enables 
enforcement as quickly as possible and that reviews of taxable events extending 
over many years remain the exception.