ECJ Customs C‑617/24 (Siegfried Pharma Chemikalien Minden GmbH): Customs Retroactivity – Delegated Powers Upheld

On November 20, 2025, the ECJ issued its decision in the Customs Case C‑617/24 (Siegfried Pharma Chemikalien Minden GmbH).

1. Subject Matter

This briefing reviews the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446. This provision limits the retroactive effect of inward processing authorisations under the Union Customs Code (UCC) (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013). The core issue is whether the European Commission exceeded its delegated powers by setting temporal limits for such authorisations.

2. Key Legal Provisions

Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013):

• Article 5(2)(a): Defines ‘customs legislation’ to include the Code and supplementing/implementing provisions.
• Article 22(4): States decisions take effect from the date of applicant’s receipt, “Except where otherwise specified in the decision or in the customs legislation.”
• Article 24(d): Empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to “determine… the cases… where the decision takes effect from a date which is different from the date on which the applicant receives it.”
• Article 211(1)(a): Requires authorisation for inward processing.
• Article 211(2): Lays down conditions for granting retroactive authorisations (e.g., proven economic need, no prior retroactive authorisation within three years), but does not specify time limits for retroactivity.
• Article 212(a): Empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to “determine… the conditions for granting the authorisation for the procedures referred to in Article 211(1).”
• Recital 39: Delegates power to the Commission to “supplement” rules and protect financial interests.

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446:

• Recital 1: Acknowledges UCC delegates power to “supplement certain non-essential elements.”
• Recital 14: States decisions should take effect from a different date in certain cases for “clarity and legal certainty.”
• Article 172 (the contested provision), entitled ‘Retroactive effect’:Paragraph 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.”
• Paragraph 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.”

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

• Article 290(1): Allows legislative acts to delegate to the Commission power to adopt non-legislative acts to “supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act.” Requires objectives, content, scope, and duration of delegation to be explicitly defined. Essential elements must be laid down in basic legislation.
• Article 296 (second paragraph): Requires EU acts to state reasons.

3. Background of the Dispute

Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH (“Siegfried Pharma”) applied for an inward processing authorisation in November 2018, but failed to complete the application. Until July 2019, it declared goods for free circulation, paying significant customs duties. In April 2021, Siegfried Pharma sought a retroactive inward processing authorisation, referring to its earlier application, to recover these duties. The Main Customs Office rejected the request, citing incomplete documentation and lack of “economic need” (Article 211(2)(a) UCC).

Siegfried Pharma challenged the decision, arguing that the Commission had exceeded its powers by limiting the retroactive effect of authorisations in Article 172 of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446. The company contended that Article 211(2) UCC did not impose such time limits, and that such limits might constitute an “essential element” that could not be delegated. The Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf, Germany) referred the question of Article 172’s validity to the CJEU.

4. Question Referred

The Finanzgericht Düsseldorf asked the CJEU: “Is [the contested provision] valid?”

The referring court’s doubts centered on two main grounds:

1. Whether the Commission exceeded the limits of its delegated powers under Article 24(d) and Article 212(a) of the Customs Code.
2. Whether the reasoning for the contested provision satisfied the requirement to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

5. Court’s Analysis and Key Findings

The CJEU ultimately found no factors affecting the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446.

5.1 Delegation of Powers (Article 290 TFEU)

• “Supplement” vs. “Amend”: The Court reiterated that Article 290(1) TFEU distinguishes between powers to “supplement” (flesh out non-essential elements without legislating comprehensively) and “amend” (modify or repeal non-essential elements). The power to “determine” in the UCC generally implies a power to “supplement.”
• “where the EU legislature confers a power to ‘supplement’ a legislative act on the Commission, it decides not to legislate comprehensively and merely establishes the essential elements, while leaving it to the Commission to ‘flesh out’ those elements.” (Paragraph 30)
• Reasoning for Delegation: Recital 39 of the UCC explicitly states that the power to adopt delegated acts was to “supplement the rules concerning the customs debt and the guarantees.” Recital 1 of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 confirms the Commission understood its power as one to “supplement.”
• Specific Empowering Provisions:The Court acknowledged that Article 212(a) UCC only refers to authorisations under Article 211(1) UCC (general authorisations), not specifically to Article 211(2) UCC (retroactive authorisations).
• However, it found that Article 24(d) UCC, read with Article 22(4) UCC, did empower the Commission to “supplement the rules laid down in the Customs Code concerning the temporal effects of customs authorisations, in particular inward processing authorisations.” (Paragraph 35) Article 22(4) UCC explicitly allows customs legislation to specify a different effective date for decisions.
• Temporal Scope as a Non-Essential Element: The CJEU ruled that the UCC’s “silence… regarding the temporal aspect of the retroactive effect… does not in any way amount to prohibiting the Commission from limiting in time the possibility of issuing such an authorisation.” (Paragraph 37) Instead, it illustrates the legislature’s intent to establish essential elements and allow the Commission to “flesh out” non-essential ones.
• The mere limitation in time of a generally provided retroactive effect does not constitute an “essential element” requiring specific political choices by the EU legislature.
• Policy Objectives: The time limitation was deemed necessary to ensure clarity, legal certainty, and equal treatment among legal subjects, preventing divergent practices across Member States.
• Strict Interpretation of Derogations: The Court emphasized that provisions like Article 211(2) UCC, which grant exemptions from customs duties, are derogations and must be interpreted strictly. By limiting the retroactive effect, Article 172 “has merely applied the rule that derogations from that principle are to be interpreted strictly and, in so doing, has contributed to the protection of the financial interests of the Union.” (Paragraph 42)

5.2 Requirement to State Reasons (Article 296 TFEU)

• The CJEU confirmed that the statement of reasons for a general measure doesn’t need to be exhaustive but must clearly disclose the essential objective.
• Recital 14 of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446: This recital explicitly states the objective for determining different effective dates for decisions: “for the sake of clarity and legal certainty.”
• Continuity with Prior Law: The Court noted that Article 172 essentially perpetuated the previous legal situation, as Article 508(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 had also provided for a retroactive effect limited to one year. This context meant a less detailed statement of reasons was acceptable.

6. Conclusion

The Court concluded that consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446.

The Commission acted within its delegated powers, primarily under Article 24(d) of the UCC, to “supplement” the customs legislation by defining the temporal effects of retroactive inward processing authorisations. This limitation was deemed a non-essential element necessary for legal certainty, equal treatment, and adherence to the strict interpretation of customs duty derogations, thereby also protecting the financial interests of the Union. Furthermore, the delegated regulation satisfied the requirement to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

Source Curia

---

---