European Court of Justice

Local Contact

16 Feb 2026
Subject Tax updates
Categories Tax

Overview:

General Court ruling (Case T-177/25, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Gdańsku) regarding the prohibition to amend the customs declaration to benefit from inclusion of a quotum

Customs – General Court ruling in case T-177/25 (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Import and export procedures – Tariff quotas – Exhaustion of the quota on the first day of its opening – No quota number integrated into the TARIC code – Subsequent amendment of the customs declaration in order to benefit from inclusion in the quota – Concept of "amendment [permitting] the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned" – Article 173(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013)

The General Court rules that: 

Article 173(3) UCC must be interpreted as precluding an operator from adding, to a customs declaration that has been previously submitted, a specific tariff quota number in order to replace, in that declaration, the erga omnes rate initially applied for with a preferential duty rate.

General Court ruling (Case T-653/24, Accorinvest) regarding the question whether a French national levy on the supply of electricity should be considered an "other indirect tax"

Excises - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Excise duties – Other indirect taxes on excise goods – Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC – Concept of "other indirect tax" – Tariff-based contribution on electricity transmission and distribution services – Passing on the tax to the consumer – Direct and inseverable link between the tax and the consumption of electricity)

The general Court rules that: 

  1. Article 1(2) Excise Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a legal mechanism for passing on a tax to the final electricity consumer does not in itself imply that that tax, which is calculated independently of the quantity of electricity actually consumed, has a direct and inseverable link with the consumption of electricity and is to be regarded as an "other indirect tax" within the meaning of that provision.
  2. Article 1(2) Excise Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a tax payable in respect of the network access contracts concluded by consumers or their suppliers and the calculation of which is not based on the quantity of electricity actually consumed does not constitute an "other indirect tax" within the meaning of that provision.

ECJ ruling (Joint cases C-72/24 [Keladis I] and C-73/24 [Keladis II]) regarding the use of "lowest acceptable price" method calculated on the basis on aggregated statistical value established at EU level

Customs - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Union Customs Code – Importation of goods – Customs value – Undervaluation – Secondary methods for determining customs value – "Lowest acceptable price" method calculated on the basis of aggregated statistical values established at EU level – Whether permissible)

The ECJ rules that: 

  1. Article 31(1) and (2)(f) and (g) CCC and Article 74(3) UCC read in conjunction with Article 144(1) and (2)(f) and (g) IA UCC must be interpreted as not precluding, where, in the course of a post-clearance examination during which, first, it is not possible to physically check the imported goods and, second, the description of the goods in the documents accompanying the import declaration is general and vague, so that the customs value of the imported goods cannot be determined in accordance with Articles 29 and 30 CCC, as amended, and Article 70 and 74(2) of UCC, the determination of that value on the basis of a "lowest acceptable price", which is calculated on the basis of aggregate statistical values established at EU level, provided that the economic operator concerned has the opportunity to justify the lower prices indicated in the customs declaration.
  2. Article 31(1) CCC, and Article 74(3) UCC must be interpreted as meaning that, where the customs value is assessed in the light of a "lowest acceptable price" calculated on the basis of aggregated statistical values established at EU level, first, the imports used to obtain that data must be imports carried out at or about the same time as those subject to the post-clearance examination and, second, the 90-day time limit referred to in Article 152(1)(b) CCC Implementing Regulation, and Article 142(2) IA UCC is also applicable, by analogy, since that period may be varied with reasonable flexibility.
  3. Article 81 CCC, and Article 177 UCC must be interpreted as not precluding the customs authorities from reassessing the customs value of the goods concerned following a post-clearance examination in accordance with the method of simplifying customs declarations laid down in those articles which was used at the time of the importation of those goods at the request of the declarant.
  4. Article 201 VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the person deemed to be the owner of the imported goods by way of payment of import value added tax may be liable for that tax if national provisions expressly designate or recognise that to be the case.

ECJ ruling (C-811/23 P, Zippo Manufacturing Co and Zippo GmbH) regarding the right to be heard

Commercial policy (Appeal – Commercial policy – Commercial policy measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502 – Measures adopted by the United States of America on imports of certain derivative aluminium and steel products – European Union decision to suspend equivalent trade concessions and other obligations – Additional customs duties on imports of products originating in the United States – Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle of good administration – Right to be heard – Principle of ne ultra petita)

The ECJ hereby:

  1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 October 2023, Zippo Manufacturing and Others v Commission (T‑402/20, EU:T:2023:640), to the extent that it annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502 of 6 April 2020 on certain commercial policy measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America, in so far as that implementing regulation covers products falling within subheading 96138000 of the Combined Nomenclature established by Council Regulation (EEC) Tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and to the extent that that judgment rules on costs;
  2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the first to fourth pleas raised in support of the action in Case T‑402/20;
  3. Reserves the costs.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.