Customs law: ECJ clarifies the reimbursement procedure ex officio

In its judgment C-206/24 of 1 August 2025, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on the conditions under which a customs authority is obliged to refund import duties levied without legal basis ex officio. The ECJ clarified that a refund ex officio requires the customs authority to determine, within three years of the entry in the accounts, that the duties were levied without legal basis – and to also know the identity of the person concerned and the amount of the refund. If this information is lacking, the authority must take reasonable, but not disproportionate, measures to obtain it. If this is not possible, the obligation to refund lapses after the deadline – even if it has determined within the deadline that the duties were not legally owed.

Historical Development of the Refund Provisions

The decision is based on the interpretation of Article 2(2), subparagraph 1, applicable in the underlying case. Article 3 of Regulation No. 1430/79. This provision applied until the entry into force of the Community Customs Code (CCC), which came into effect on 1 January 1994. The CCC was later replaced by the so-called Modernized Customs Code (Regulation (EC) No. 450/2008), which in turn was superseded by the Union Customs Code (UCC) currently in force (Regulation (EU) No. 952/2013). The refund of import duties paid without legal basis is now governed by Articles 116 et seq. in conjunction with Article 121 UCC. Since the conditions for the refund of import duties ex officio in Article 116(4) of the Union Customs Code (UCC) remain essentially unchanged, the ECJ's judgment on Article 2(2) of Regulation No. 1430/79 has a direct impact on the current legal situation. The unjustified imposition of customs duties as the starting point of the legal dispute: Between 1988 and 1991, the French customs authorities levied customs duties on goods imported into Andorra from third countries – even though these imports should have been duty-free under EU law. It was not until 1991 that the European Commission recognized the infringement and France abolished the practice. However, the importers concerned did not sue for a refund of the unjustifiably levied customs duties until 2008. The French customs authorities refused to grant a refund ex officio, citing the three-year time limit under Article 2(2), second subparagraph, of the UCC. 3 of Regulation No. 1430/79. This period had long since expired; moreover, the customs authority had not made a complete determination within this three-year period regarding the unlawful imposition of import duties – in particular, it lacked knowledge of the identity of the customs debtors and the specific amounts to be refunded.

Legal requirements for refund ex officio

Customs law provides – both under Article 2(2) of Regulation No. 1430/79 and under Article 116 in conjunction with Article 121 of the Union Customs Code (UCC) – for two refund procedures: refund upon application and refund ex officio. The subject of the ECJ judgment C-206/24 is exclusively refund ex officio pursuant to Article 2(2), second subparagraph. 3 of Regulation No. 1430/79, now regulated in Article 116(4) of the UCC.

The ECJ clarifies that the refund ex officio is contingent upon the competent authority itself determining, within three years of the entry in the accounts, that the customs duties were levied without legal basis. However, this determination is only effective if the authority knows both the identity of the person who paid the duties and the specific amount of the refund.

If the authority lacks this information, it is obliged, as part of its investigation, to take appropriate measures (e.g., inquiries) to obtain it. In doing so, it may not invoke administrative or financial difficulties of its authority, but it is also not required to take measures whose cost would be disproportionate. If the authority has undertaken such reasonable but unsuccessful measures within the three-year period, the legal obligation to issue a refund ex officio ceases after the deadline expires – even if the illegality of the duty collection was recognized within the deadline. Practical Implications: On the one hand, the ECJ ruling C-206/24 strengthens the position of customs debtors, as the Court clarifies the content of the refund ex officio and requires customs authorities to conduct reasonable investigations regarding the scope of refund claims. On the other hand, customs debtors should not rely too heavily on the legally mandated obligation to issue a refund ex officio, but should, if possible, take timely action themselves if they have doubts about the legality of import duties paid. Customs debtors should review their customs procedures and ensure that relevant applications are submitted in a timely manner.