Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2025:908
• Docket Number: C-617/24
• Date: 20 November 2025

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

20 November 2025 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Union Customs Code – Article 24(d) and Article 211(2) – Delegation of power to the European Commission – Power to ‘supplement’ a legislative act – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 – Article 172(1) and (2) – Validity – Retroactive effect of an inward processing authorisation )

In Case C‑617/24,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), made by decision of 4 September 2024, received at the Court on 23 September 2024, in the proceedings

Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt Bielefeld,

THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of F. Schalin (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Rantos,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH, by C. Pötters, Rechtsanwältin, and R. Vobbe, Steuerberater,

– the European Commission, by B. Eggers and F. Moro, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of 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).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH (‘Siegfried Pharma’) and the Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Main Customs Office, Bielefeld, Germany) (‘the Main Customs Office’) concerning an application for a retroactive inward processing authorisation.

Legal context

The Customs Code

3 Recital 39 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1) (‘the Customs Code’) states:

‘In order to protect the financial interests of the [European] Union and of the Member States and to supplement the rules concerning the customs debt and the guarantees, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the [European] Commission in respect of the place of incurrence of the customs debt, the calculation of the amount of import and export duty, the guarantee of that amount and the recovery, repayment, remission and extinguishment of the customs debt.’

4 It follows from Article 5(2)(a) of the Customs Code that ‘customs legislation’ includes inter alia ‘[that code] and the provisions supplementing or implementing it adopted at Union or national level’.

5 Section 3 of Chapter 2 of Title I of the Customs Code, entitled ‘Decisions relating to the application of the customs legislation’, contains Article 22 of that code, paragraphs 2 and 4 of which provide:

‘2. Customs authorities shall, without delay and at the latest within 30 days of receipt of the application for a decision, verify whether the conditions for the acceptance of that application are fulfilled.

Where the customs authorities establish that the application contains all the information required in order for them to be able to take the decision, they shall communicate its acceptance to the applicant within the period specified in the first subparagraph.

…

4. Except where otherwise specified in the decision or in the customs legislation, the decision shall take effect from the date on which the applicant receives it, or is deemed to have received it. …’

6 Article 24 of the Customs Code provides:

‘The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 284, in order to determine:

…

(d) the cases, referred to in Article 22(4), where the decision takes effect from a date which is different from the date on which the applicant receives it or is deemed to have received it;

…’

7 Article 211 of that code states:

‘1. An authorisation from the customs authorities shall be required for the following:

(a) the use of the inward or outward processing procedure, the temporary admission procedure or the end-use procedure;

…

2. The customs authorities shall grant an authorisation with retroactive effect, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a) there is a proven economic need;

…

(e) no authorisation with retroactive effect has been granted to the applicant within three years of the date on which the application was accepted;

…

(h) where an application concerns renewal of an authorisation for the same kind of operation and goods, the application is submitted within three years of expiry of the original authorisation.

…’

8 Article 212 of that code is worded as follows:

‘The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 284, in order to determine:

(a) the conditions for granting the authorisation for the procedures referred to in Article 211(1);

…’

9 Article 284 of the Customs Code, entitled ‘Exercise of the delegation’, confers on the Commission the power to adopt, in particular, the delegated acts referred to in Articles 24 and 212 of that code and specifies the conditions for exercising that delegation.

Delegated Regulation 2015/2446

10 Recitals 1 and 14 of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 state:

‘(1) [The Customs Code], in its consistency with [the FEU Treaty], delegates on the Commission the power to supplement certain non-essential elements of [that code], in accordance with Article 290 TFEU. …

…

(14) In certain cases a decision should take effect from a date which is different from the date on which the applicant receives it or is deemed to have received it, namely when the applicant has requested a different date of effect or the effect of the decision is conditional to the completion of certain formalities by the applicant. Those cases should be thoroughly identified, for the sake of clarity and legal certainty.’

11 Article 172 of that delegated regulation, entitled ‘Retroactive effect’, provides:

‘1. Where the customs authorities grant an authorisation with retroactive effect in accordance with Article 211(2) of [the Customs Code], the authorisation shall take effect at the earliest on the date of acceptance of the application.

2. In exceptional circumstances, the customs authorities may allow an authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 to take effect at the earliest one year, in case of goods covered by Annex 71-02 three months, before the date of acceptance of the application.

…’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

12 In November 2018, Siegfried Pharma submitted an application to the Main Customs Office for an authorisation for inward processing, pursuant to Article 211(1)(a) of the Customs Code, for goods imported from China. That application did not contain all the information and documents required, which was pointed out to Siegfried Pharma by the Main...