Customs law: the Court of Justice of the EU interprets the EU Customs Code in the light of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin
In a judgement handed down on 27 March 2025 (case C-351/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interpreted Article 119 of EU Regulation 952/2013 laying down the EU Customs code (the so called “EU Customs Code”) in the light of Article 32 of Appendix I of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin rules (of which the EU and most of the countries around the Mediterranean are signatories). According to this Article 32, the authorities of the importing country of products from another signatory state may carry out a posteriori checks of the proofs of origin of the product whenever they have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of the import documents accompanying these products. These documents include the product preferential treatment certificate (known as the EUR.1 certificate).
This certificate is issued by an authority of one of the EU Member States and grants an exemption from or reduction of customs duties on products imported from one of the non-EU States that are signatories to this convention. Furthermore, according to Article 119 of the Customs Code, the customs authority of a signatory state may impose customs duties on the importer whose EUR.1 certificate has been erroneously issued. According to this same article, the customs authority must reimburse or remit the amount of import duties where, as a result of an error on the part of the competent authorities, the amount corresponding to the customs debt initially notified was less than the amount payable, provided that the debtor could not ‘reasonably have detected’ this error and that he acted in good faith. According to Article 119.3 of the Customs Code, where preferential treatment of goods is granted on the basis of a system of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a country or territory outside the customs territory of the Union, the issuance of a certificate by those authorities, if found to be incorrect, constitutes a “not reasonably detectable” error.
In this case, the Kosovar customs authorities issued EUR.1 certificates of qualification for fresh mandarins originating from Turkey that were transiting through Kosovo in order to be able to export them to Hungary. After the mandarins had been brought into Hungarian territory, the Hungarian customs authorities considered that the said certificates did not comply with the regional convention or with communication 2021/C418/12 of the European Commission relating to this convention on the grounds that mandarins, as agricultural products, could not benefit from preferential treatment in the context of relations between the EU, Kosovo and Turkey. The Hungarian authorities therefore set the customs duties at 2,580,000 Hungarian forints (approximately €6,350). Relying on Articles 116 and 119 of the Customs Code, the Hungarian importing company, Vámügynöki Kft., requested a remission of customs duties on the grounds that the error in these certificates was not ‘reasonably detectable’ and that therefore it was not necessary to carry out further checks. This request having been rejected, the question put to the CJEU was whether Article 119(3) of the EU Customs Code should be interpreted as precluding a national practice which allows the finding that a proof of origin is incorrect without initiating the procedure provided for in Article 32 of Appendix I to the pan-Euro-Mediterranean Regional Convention.
The CJEU replied that as the EUR.1 certificate was vitiated by a manifest error, the Hungarian customs authority could claim customs duties without being obliged to initiate the verification procedure provided for in Article 32 of the Convention. The CJEU based its decision on the fact that mandarins are an agricultural product and could not therefore benefit from preferential treatment, and that the company Vámügynöki Kft, as an experienced player in the sector, should reasonably have known that the EUR.1 certificate could not be associated with this type of product. The error was therefore ‘reasonably detectable’ on its part.
