Case C-657/25, Petikov: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad – Plovdiv (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 September 2025 – Criminal proceedings against PL
Date: 2025-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative offence, administrative sanction, customs fraud, customs valuation, goods, illicit trade, offence, penalty








C_202506607EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6607


22.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad – Plovdiv (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 September 2025 – Criminal proceedings against PL


(Case C-657/25, Petikov
                (1)
)

(C/2025/6607)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad – Plovdiv

Party to the main proceedings

PL

Questions referred







1.


Is Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (‘Regulation No 952/2013’) Regulation No 952/2013 applicable to customs offences which constitute criminal offences under national law, in particular in the area of penalties in respect of smuggling of goods which, depending on the value and the manner in which that is determined (pursuant to the Zakon za mitnitsite (Customs law, ‘ZM’) on the basis of the customs value at import assessed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 70 and 74 of Regulation No 952/2013 or, as provided for in the case-law on the application of Article 242(1)(e) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code; ‘the NK’), in accordance with the market prices determined by means of an expert opinion), is either an administrative offence under Article 233 of the ZM or a criminal offence under Article 242(1)(e) of the NK?










2.


Do Articles 83(3) and 69 of Regulation No 952/2013 allow determining the value of goods involved in a customs offence according to criteria other than those set out in Articles 70 and 74 thereof and, accordingly, is national legislation permissible which, like that laid down in Article 242(1)(e) of the NK, for the definition of aggravated smuggling uses the criterion ‘large scale’ as the sole condition for differentiating between (i) the administrative offence under Article 233(1) of the ZM, which is punishable by a fine calculated as a percentage of the customs value of the goods determined at import in accordance with the methodology set down in Articles 70 and 74 of Regulation No 952/2013, and (ii) the criminal offence under Article 242(1)(e) of the NK, which is punishable by a term of imprisonment and a fine, whereas the criterion ‘large scale’ has no legal definition and its meaning was established in interpretative decision No 1 of 30 October 1998 of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation) in interpretative case No 1/1998 of the General Assembly of the Criminal Chamber (OSNK), according to which ‘large scale’ relates to the monetary value of the object of the offence being 70 times more than the minimum wage established in the country, whereas in market prices the determination of monetary value is not based on normative or other objective criteria but is undertaken by an expert appraiser, and thereby does that infringe the right of the accused person/defendant to an effective remedy and to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter, given that the criterion ‘large scale’ which transforms an administrative customs offence into a criminal offence is defined not in the law but in an interpretative decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which is not published in the Darzhaven vestnik (State Gazette)?










3.


Does Article 42(1) of Regulation No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a normative provision such as that set down in Article 242(1)(e) of the NK, which classifies a customs offence as a criminal offence on the basis of the criterion ‘large scale’, which has no legal definition in the law and the substance of which is derived from case-law – interpretative decision No 1 of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 30 October 1998 – and, given the absence of clarification in law as to the aggravated condition of the offence, are the mandatory requirement that the severity of a penalty be proportionate to the criminal offence and the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties disregarded where a penalty is imposed for a criminal offence which is not unequivocally established in law and where, for an essential component of the offence, reference is made to case-law in disregard of the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege?










4.


Must the general principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that laid down in Article 242(7) of the NK, which prescribes that, in cases where the smuggled property no longer exists or has been sold, confiscation is ordered of their equivalent value in line with the relevant State retail selling prices, although, following the end of the planned economy and the introduction of market principles in the country’s economy, prices fixed by the State for the goods no longer exist (except for cigarettes), with the result that there is no basis on which such equivalent values can be established in order to determine the quantitative criteria ‘large scale’ and ‘especially large scale’, which influence whether the smuggling is categorised as a customs offence of an administrative or criminal nature, and the nature and severity of the penalties? Is it permissible in such cases to take the customs value of the goods, assessed in accordance with provisions of Articles 70 and 74 of Regulation No 952/2013, as a basis for establishing equivalent values because it provides the closest approximation to the term ‘State retail selling prices’, and is it permissible within that legal wording to operate on the basis of a market price of the goods assessed by a court-ordered economic expert?










5.


Must the principle of proportionality of penalties for customs offences as set down in Article 42(1) of Regulation No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the proportionality of criminal offences and penalties and in the context of the judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2024, SISTEM LUX (Joined Cases C-717/22 and C-372/23, (3) EU:C:2024:1041, paragraphs 52 and 53), be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that laid down in Article 242(1)(e) of the NK, under which the person having committed the criminal offence of aggravated smuggling of goods or items of a commercial nature on a large scale is subject to two severe cumulative penalties – a term of imprisonment of between three and ten years and a fine of BGN 20 000 to BGN 100 000, while at the same time, under Article 242(7) of the NK, the smuggled property, irrespective of who owns it, is confiscated for the benefit of the State or, if it no longer exists or has been sold, the recovery of its equivalent value is ordered?










6.


Must the principle of proportionality of penalties for customs offences as set down in Article 42(1) of Regulation No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the proportionality of criminal offences and penalties and in the context of the judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2024, SISTEM LUX (Joined Cases C-717/22 and C-372/23, EU:C:2024:1041, paragraphs 52 and 53), be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that laid down in Article 233(1) and (2) of the ZM which prescribes that, in cases of common (not aggravated) smuggling, the offender is ordered to pay a fine equal to between 100 % and 200 % of the customs value of the goods or, in the case of export, of the value of the goods, while at the same time, under Article 233(6) of the ZM, the smuggled goods, irrespective of who owns them, are confiscated for the benefit of the State or, if they no longer exist or have been disposed of, the recovery of their equivalent value is ordered, comprising their customs value or, in the case of export, their value?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

(3)  ECLI:EU:C:2024:1041.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6607/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)