ECJ Customs Case T-300/26 (CAD Laghezza) – ECJ to Examine Whether AEO Status Creates a Right to Alternative Customs Clearance Locations

Summary

This case, similar to CAD Sernav, asks the ECJ if AEO status confers a right to perform customs operations at alternative locations or if authorities retain discretion.
It questions whether an authorization granted on a trial basis can be revoked if public-interest considerations change.
The judgment will help define the legal nature of AEO benefits and the extent of Member State authorities’ discretion in granting or withdrawing customs authorizations.

Article

In Case T-300/26 (CAD Laghezza), the Italian Council of State has raised substantially similar questions to those submitted in CAD Sernav, focusing on the interpretation of Article 24(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446. The referring court seeks guidance on whether possession of AEO status gives an operator a right to conduct customs operations at a place other than the customs office upon request, or whether customs authorities retain discretion to evaluate whether such arrangements remain compatible with the public interest. The referral also addresses whether an authorization granted on a trial basis may subsequently be revoked if the public-interest considerations supporting its grant cease to exist. As in CAD Sernav, the ECJ is asked to consider whether national administrative-law provisions governing revocation of favourable decisions are compatible with EU customs law. Although the questions largely mirror those raised in Case T-299/26, the ECJ’s response could establish an important precedent regarding the legal nature of AEO benefits and the extent to which Member State customs authorities may rely on public-interest considerations when granting or withdrawing customs authorizations.

Source