Case T-190/25, Tabako lapai: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 27 February 2025 – Criminal proceedings against A.K. and Tabako lapai UAB
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, excise duty, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence, smoking, specification of tariff heading, tobacco








C_202502566EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2566


12.5.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 27 February 2025 – Criminal proceedings against A.K. and ‘Tabako lapai’ UAB


(Case T-190/25, Tabako lapai)

(C/2025/2566)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

A.K. and ‘Tabako lapai’ UAB

Questions referred







1.


In determining whether the tobacco at issue in the present case is ‘smoking tobacco’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU, (1) and in applying the definition in that provision and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, may the national court also rely, in addition, on the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) relating to the classification of that tobacco and on [the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature (CN) of the European Union]? (3)











2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:






(1)


must Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/64 be interpreted as meaning that tobacco is to be regarded as ‘smoking tobacco’ even if that tobacco has been classified under CN heading 2403  (manufactured tobacco) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/1925 (4) without the conditions for the smoking test described in the Annex to the Explanatory Notes to the [CN] being fulfilled, as in the present case?










(2)


how is CN heading 2401  (unmanufactured tobacco) to be interpreted for the purpose of classifying tobacco under Regulation 2017/1925, where the result of a smoking test carried out in accordance with the Explanatory Notes to the CN is negative, but the tobacco is considered to be manufactured tobacco for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/64?














3.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is such legislation, whereby smoking tobacco is defined, in essence, in the same way but is classified differently under Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/64 and under the [CN], inconsistent with the general principle of legal certainty and the principle of nulla poena sine lege, as enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union]?






(1)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

(3)  Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union, C/2016/2051 (OJ 2016 C 121, p. 4).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1925 of 12 October 2017 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2017 L 282, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2566/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)