62023TJ0329_RES
Case T‑329/23
Czech Republic
v
European Commission
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 April 2025
(Own resources of the European Union – Financial liability of the Member States – Obligation for Member States to make own resources available to the Commission – Payment to the Commission of amounts corresponding to non-recovered own resources – Import duties – Imports of textiles, footwear and sunglasses from Asia – Customs value – No undervaluation – No obligation to lodge a security before release – Unjustified enrichment on the part of the European Union)
Own resources of the European Union – Establishment and making available by the Member States – Making own resources available subject to reservations – Action alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the European Union – Burden of proof
(Arts 268 and 340, second para., TFEU)
(see paragraphs 38, 39)
Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Customs value – Determination – Methods for determination – Determination on the basis of a statistical value, such as the lowest acceptable price (LAP) – Not permitted for determining the customs value by the residual method – Use of a statistical value reserved for detecting imports likely to be undervalued
(Parliament and Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 29)
(see paragraphs 82-84, 93)
Own resources of the European Union – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Obligation of the Member States – Lodging a security over imports whose customs value is likely to have been undervalued – Condition – Information enabling them to calculate a customs amount higher than that determined on the basis of the declared customs value
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 13(1), Arts 29, 30 and 31; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 248(1))
(see paragraphs 85-87, 94, 95)
Résumé
Hearing an action for unjust enrichment of the European Union, which it upholds, the General Court rules on a novel question concerning, first, the examination of an action brought by a Member State on the basis of alleged unjust enrichment of own resources in the area of customs and, second, the taking into consideration of a statistical value as the basis for calculating the customs value of the goods.
Following the abolition, as from 1 January 2005, of all quotas on imports of textiles and clothing from countries which are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the European Union was exposed to a very large quantity of imports of textiles and footwear from Asia, and in particular from China, and to a risk of an undervaluation of the customs value of those imports. In response to that risk, the priority control action (
1
)‘Discount’ (‘PCA Discount’), to which all Member States had subscribed, provided for more in-depth customs controls and targeted imports of certain textile products, footwear and sunglasses from China, Thailand and Vietnam with a low customs value. In the context of that action, risk thresholds were set. They allowed Member States’ customs authorities to detect particularly low values declared on import and, consequently, imports at a significant risk of their customs value being undervalued. To that end, 20 Integrated Tariff of the European Union codes were created and, for each of those codes, a ‘cleaned average price’ (‘CAP’) was determined by the European Commission. Next, an average was calculated for the entire European Union based on the arithmetical average of the CAPs of all the Member States, and abnormally high or low values were excluded. Finally, the ‘lowest acceptable price’ (‘the LAP’), corresponding to 50% of the CAP, was calculated and used as a risk threshold.
From 10 to 14 November 2014, the Commission undertook an inspection mission to the Czech Republic relating to the Czech Republic’s implementation of the PCA Discount. Following that mission, the Commission sent the Czech authorities a report in which it expressed reservations on the implementation of that operation. Specifically, it concluded that there had been no effective verification of all the customs declarations concerned and that all the goods had been released without a request for a security, despite there being reasonable doubts that the customs value of those goods had been undervalued. According to the Commission, that had resulted in a loss of traditional own resources of the European Union for which the Czech authorities were responsible, which was equal to the difference between the customs duty calculated on the basis of the declared customs value and the customs value calculated on the basis of the LAP. Throughout the exchanges between the Czech Republic and the Commission, in which the Commission did not accept the evidence provided by that Member State, the Commission regularly insisted that the Czech Republic make available to the EU budget, first, the difference between the customs duty calculated on the basis of the declared customs value and the duty calculated on the basis of the LAP, then, the difference between the customs duty calculated on the basis of the declared customs value and the duty calculated on the basis of the CAP (rather than the LAP). Although it objected on a number of occasions, the Czech Republic, subject to conditions, made available to the EU budget the amounts resulting from the calculations of the differences referred to above. On 22 June 2020, a partial set-off of the sum paid was made in favour of the Czech Republic.
On 15 June 2023, the Czech Republic brought the present action alleging unjust enrichment of the European Union.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, the Court recalls the rules of evidence applicable to an action for damages based on unjust enrichment of the European Union. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in an action of that nature brought by a Member State which has made available to the Commission an amount of the European Union’s own resources, expressing reservations as to the validity of the Commission’s position, it is for the General Court to assess, in particular, whether the impoverishment of the Member State having the status of an applicant, which is equivalent to making that amount available to the Commission, and the corresponding enrichment of the Commission, are justified by the Member State’s obligations under EU law governing the European Union’s own resources or, on the contrary, whether no such justification exists. (
2
)
Accordingly, it is for the Member State to demonstrate that it was not required, under the EU rules governing the system of own resources, to make available to the Commission the amount of own resources which are the subject of the dispute and that it has complied with those obligations. The burden of proof thereby placed on the Member State does not, however, mean that the Commission may confine itself to stating, in a general manner and without supporting evidence, that the matters raised in that context by the Member State are insufficient.
In the second place, as regards the relevance of the statistical value as a basis for estimating the customs value, the Court notes that the Commission submits, in essence, that, as long as the declared customs value is below the LAP, it is unacceptable and, consequently, that the lodging of a security must be requested by the national authorities before release. The Court finds that such a situation, according to which any customs value below the LAP must in principle be rejected, irrespective of the extent of the doubts remaining, or not, after verifications and checks carried out by the customs authorities, fails to have regard to the margin of discretion enjoyed by the Member States in carrying out customs controls and the customs legislation which lays down a specific procedure in the event of a challenge to the declared customs value.
Consequently, the Court finds that a statistical value, such as the LAP, can only be used as a risk analysis tool, that is to say, a tool for detecting on the basis of risk profiles those imports likely to be undervalued which require verification, not for determining their customs value.
In the third and last place, in the context of an assessment of the Czech customs authorities’ actual possibilities to determine a higher customs value, the Court examines whether, by applying the secondary methods (
3
) in order to determine the customs value, those authorities could have arrived at a higher customs value which was higher than the transaction value (
4
) and whether, therefore, lodging a security before the release of the goods concerned would have contributed to protecting the financial interests of the European Union.
In that context, it should be recalled that the objective of a security is to enable the customs authorities, first, to authorise the release of the goods while continuing to examine them and the documentation accompanying them and, second, to prevent the situation where a potential customs debt resulting from such an examination is no longer recoverable. It follows that it is only where the customs authorities of a Member State have information enabling them to calculate an amount of customs duties higher than that collected on the basis of the declared customs value and, therefore, to establish an additional entitlement to own resources in favour of the European Union that lodging a security contributes to protecting the financial interests of the European Union. In that regard, the Court notes that a statistical value, such as the LAP, is not used to assess the customs value of the goods, not even in the context of determining the value by the residual method.
Therefore, and given that the Community Customs Code (
5
) and the case-law rule out the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values, the Court finds that there is nothing in the file to support the conclusion that the application of the residual method (
6
) would have resulted in the collection of an additional amount of customs duties and thereby of the own resources of the European Union.
Therefore, the Court concludes that the Czech Republic was not required, under the EU rules governing the system of own resources, to make available to the Commission the amount of own resources which is the subject matter of the dispute, ordering the Commission to repay that amount to the Member State concerned.
(
1
)	Pursuant to Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1; ‘the Community Customs Code’).
(
2
)	See, to that effect, judgment of 9 July 2020, Czech Republic v European Commission (C‑575/18 P, EU:C:2020:530, paragraph 83).
(
3
)	Laid down in Articles 30 to 31 of the Community Customs Code.
(
4
)	Under Article 29 of the Community Customs Code.
(
5
)	Article 30(2) of the Community Customs Code.
(
6
)	As provided for in Article 31 of the Community Customs Code.