Case T-841/25: Action brought on 8 December 2025 – Yara v Commission
Date: 2025-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, customs drawback, customs inspection, goods, import, import levy, rights of the defence, tariff exemption








C_202600667EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/667


9.2.2026






Action brought on 8 December 2025 – Yara v Commission


(Case T-841/25)

(C/2026/667)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Yara GmbH & Co. KG (Dülmen, Germany) (represented by: D. Bell, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s implementing decision of 22 August 2025 on the repayment of import duties under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (REP 01/2024), C(2025) 5738, vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Germany;










—


order the defendant to adopt a new implementing decision, vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Germany, granting a repayment of the import duties in the amount of EUR 1 247 314;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: Misapplication of Article 239(1), second indent, of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) – repayment of import duties owing to special circumstances
The long-standing practice of the German tax authorities consisting in the granting of preferential treatment while being aware of the fact that goods of different origin were mixed in the tank facilities and in leaving that treatment without challenge in a number of audits amounts to an active error of law for the purposes of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and forms the basis for legitimate expectations on the part of the debtor in the application of that preferential treatment. Such an error was not detectable for the applicant, which for its part acted in good faith. The applicant cannot be accused of either deception or obvious negligence. The error committed by the tax authorities amounts to a special circumstance for the purposes of Article 239(1), second indent, of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/93, which occurred owing to a mistake on the part of the tax authorities and which lies outside the normal commercial risk borne by the applicant. The applicant is entitled to a repayment of the amount of duty owed pursuant to the law.










2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of the right to good administration and of the right to be heard – Article 41(1) and Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
The adoption of the implementing decision on the same day on which the defendant confirmed to the applicant’s representative receipt of a 13-page document submitting observations in the context of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 99 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (2) is in breach of fundamental rules governing the conduct of a proper administrative procedure, and, in particular, of the right to be heard.






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/667/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)