ECLI:EU:C:2026:366

Full text

Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

BIONDI

delivered on 30 April 2026 (1)

Case C‑157/25

Administratie Douane & Accijnzen – Regio Antwerpen

Openbaar Ministerie

Criminal proceedings

against

NV Jas Forwarding Worldwide (Belgium),

Gerlach & Co. NV,

BO BayWa r.e. Solar Systems SARL,

BO bejulo,

BO Memodo,

BO Densys pv5,

BO HelioActive Rendszerintegrator,

BO Donauer Solar Systems

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp, Belgium))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commercial policy – Anti-dumping and countervailing duties – Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/184, 2016/185, 2017/366 and 2017/367 – Import of photovoltaic modules assembled in South Korea or Vietnam with photovoltaic cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan – Concept of ‘consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan’ – Customs declarations – Country of dispatch – Indication of commodity code – Proof of exemption )

I. Introduction

1. In the current context of international trade, in which production processes, or parts thereof, may be relocated with ease, it is easier to engage in practices, such as minor assembly operations, aimed at circumventing trade defence measures such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties. In such circumstances, it is essential for the European Union to have at its disposal effective trade defence instruments to ensure the restoration of fair conditions of competition in the internal market and to neutralise unfair advantages arising from dumping practices or foreign government subsidies that cause injury to EU industry. (2)

2. In that context, anti-circumvention measures adopted by the European Union, such as those at issue in the present case, have a fundamental role to play. The implementation of such measures in practice may, however, give rise to significant difficulties in the Member States and create situations of legal uncertainty in circumstances in which there are significant economic implications and potentially serious consequences, including even of a criminal nature, for the operators concerned, in particular for importers.

3. The present reference for a preliminary ruling constitutes an example of such difficulties. In particular, the Court of Justice of the European Union is called upon to clarify the way in which anti-circumvention measures in relation to anti-dumping and countervailing duties concerning photovoltaic modules may be applied where those modules are not sent directly from the countries subject to anti-circumvention measures (indirect shipment). The present case also provides the Court with the opportunity to clarify the, at times complex, relationship between customs legislation, on the one hand, and anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation, on the other. As is well known, those regimes tend to overlap, given that, in most cases, both customs duties and anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties are collected simultaneously by the same authorities, namely the customs authorities of the Member States.

4. The questions referred for a preliminary ruling in the present case have been referred in criminal proceedings brought against eight companies (3) (‘the defendant companies’) before the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp, Belgium; the referring court), concerning the circumvention of duties relating to imports of photovoltaic modules from Malaysia and Taiwan.

5. In 2013, the Council imposed an anti-dumping duty (4) and a countervailing duty (5) on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.

6. In 2016, the Commission, having found that the abovementioned countervailing and anti-dumping measures were being circumvented via Malaysia and Taiwan, decided to extend, by the adoption of Implementing Regulations 2016/184 (6) and 2016/185, (7) the abovementioned duties to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not. (8)

7. Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 listed the Malaysian and Taiwanese producers which, having cooperated in the investigation, were exempted from those anti-dumping and countervailing duties, each of which was assigned a TARIC additional code. (9)

8. Those implementing regulations also provided that the application of exemptions granted to the companies concerned was conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice issued by the producer or consignor, on which a declaration complying with certain formalities set out therein had to appear. (10) In the case of imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules, those formalities included the indication of the TARIC additional code for both the producer of modules and the producer of photovoltaic cells. Those implementing regulations also specified that, if no such invoice was presented and/or those TARIC additional codes were not provided in the abovementioned declaration, the rate of countervailing or anti-dumping duties applicable to ‘all other companies’ imposed respectively by those 2013 implementing regulations would apply. Both Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 further provided that, unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties were to apply. (11)

9. In 2017, following two expiry reviews of the initial countervailing and anti-dumping measures, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/366 (12) and 2017/367, (13) by which the abovementioned anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed in 2013 were exceptionally extended for a period of 18 months, on the expiry of which those measures were not extended further. (14) Those implementing regulations maintained the exemptions for exporting producers in Malaysia and Taiwan already exempted from the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties in accordance with [Implementing] Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185. (15) For the purposes of applying the exemptions, they also laid down formal conditions identical to those referred to in point 8 above and provided for the reference to the provisions in force concerning customs duties. (16)

10. Between 1 November 2016 and 4 September 2018, the defendant companies submitted 481 import declarations for crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules (‘the photovoltaic modules’). Those modules were composed of solar cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan and transported from there to South Korea or Vietnam to be assembled into photovoltaic modules. Subsequently, the modules were transported from South Korea or Vietnam to the European Union.

11. In the declarations, the defendant companies referred, in most cases, (17) to the photovoltaic modules as originating in South Korea or Vietnam and ‘consigned’ from South Korea or Vietnam, or as originating in Malaysia or Taiwan but ‘consigned’ from South Korea or Vietnam. Those companies did not use the TARIC codes corresponding to modules imported from Malaysia or Taiwan. (18) Furthermore, the photovoltaic modules were not always accompanied by commercial invoices containing the declaration required by Implementing Regulations 2016/184, 2016/185, 2017/366 and 2017/367 (together, ‘the implementing regulations at issue’) referred to in point 8 of the present Opinion.

12. The Algemene Administratie van de Douane en Accijnzen (General Administration of Customs and Excise, Belgium; ‘the customs administration’) alleged that the defendant companies failed to declare photovoltaic modules as originating in and consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan, used incorrect TARIC codes and failed to comply with the formal requirements laid down in the implementing regulations at issue.

13. At the request of the customs administration, the criminal proceedings at issue were therefore brought against the defendant companies before the referring court. The defendant companies are therefore being prosecuted before the referring court for having circumvented anti-dumping duties totalling EUR 17 million and countervailing duties totalling EUR 3.66 million, in relation to the import of photovoltaic modules from Taiwan and Malaysia, by engaging in the following conduct: incorrectly stating the country of origin as South Korea or Vietnam, incorrectly stating that they were ‘from’ South Korea or Vietnam, using an incorrect TARIC code, and/or failing to submit the required commercial documents.

14. In that context, the referring court is called upon to ascertain the criminal liability of the defendant companies in respect of that conduct. Starting from the premiss that the photovoltaic modules at issue had to be declared as originating in Malaysia and Taiwan as they had been produced with cells originating from those countries, the referring court asks whether those photovoltaic modules should have been declared as ‘consigned’ from Malaysia or Taiwan within the meaning of the implementing regulations at issue, using the TARIC codes applicable to photovoltaic modules imported from Malaysia or Taiwan.

15. The referring court considers that, by virtue of the references in those implementing regulations to customs legislation, the provisions relating to box 15 in Annex 9, Appendix C1, Title II C (19) of [Commission] Delegated Regulation [(EU)] 2016/341, (20) entitled ‘country of dispatch/export’ may be taken into consideration. In accordance with that provision, as a result, first, of the commercial transaction and, secondly, of a stoppage unrelated to transport, the ‘country of dispatch’ of the photovoltaic modules should no longer be regarded as Malaysia or Taiwan, but as South Korea or Vietnam.

16. The referring court notes that, according to an opinion of the Legal Service of the European Commission of 10 April 2019 addressed to [the European Anti-Fraud Office] (OLAF), (21) the term ‘consigned from’ used in Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 should be interpreted broadly, so as to cover also indirect shipments of solar cells from Malaysia or Taiwan that are assembled into photovoltaic modules in third countries.

17. According to the referring court, however, that interpretation seems to depart from the provisions of Delegated Regulation 2016/341 and also seems difficult to reconcile with the exemption regime in the implementing regulations at issue. In order to benefit from those exemptions in the case of photovoltaic modules, the declaration must include two TARIC additional codes, namely, the code of the producer of the modules and that of the producer of the cells. However, the TARIC additional code of the producer of photovoltaic modules could not be included if only the cells were produced in Malaysia or Taiwan.

18. The referring court also has doubts as to whether the declarations on the invoices issued by the defendant companies meet the formal requirements laid down in the implementing regulations at issue and as to whether all aspects of the declaration are essential to its validity or whether importers may use other means of evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of those declarations.

19. In those circumstances, the referring court decided to stay the criminal proceedings and to refer three questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. At the Court’s request, the present Opinion will, however, focus on the first and third questions referred for a preliminary ruling, in which the referring court asks:

‘1. Should photovoltaic modules or panels of crystalline silicon which were assembled in South Korea or Vietnam with photovoltaic cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan and subsequently imported into the European Union from South Korea or Vietnam be regarded as having been “consigned from Malaysia [and] Taiwan” for the purposes of Implementing Regulations 2016/184, 2016/185, 2017/366 and 2017/367, whereby the photovoltaic modules or panels of crystalline silicon must be declared as having Malaysia or Taiwan as the “country of [dispatch]” and with the relevant commodity codes for photovoltaic modules or panels of crystalline silicon “imported from Malaysia or Taiwan”?

…

3. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must the declaration on the valid commercial invoice then include the exact wording and (form) requirements of Article 4(2) of Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367 and of Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 or can there be a deviation from those wording and (form) requirements, whether or not supported by other evidence which substantiates the accuracy and authenticity of the invoice declaration?’

II. Analysis

A. The first question referred for a preliminary ruling

20. The first question referred for a preliminary ruling may be divided into two parts. First, the referring court is uncertain as to the interpretation to be given to the term ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’, as used in the implementing regulations at issue, (22) in relation to photovoltaic modules assembled in South Korea or Vietnam with photovoltaic cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan and subsequently imported into the European Union from South Korea or Vietnam. Secondly, the referring court asks the Court of Justice to determine the consequences arising from the interpretation of those terms for customs obligations (in particular, for the indication of the country of dispatch and the use of the relevant commodity codes) in relation to the importation into the European Union of the abovementioned modules.

21. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the referring court has established that the photovoltaic modules at issue, although assembled in South Korea or Vietnam, originate in Malaysia and Taiwan. The origin of photovoltaic modules is determined by that of the photovoltaic cells, (23) which, in the present case, originate in Malaysia and Taiwan. The referring court’s doubts are therefore limited to the question of whether, in the circumstances of the present cases, those modules must also be regarded as ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ within the meaning of the implementing regulations at issue.

1. The interpretation of the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ within the meaning of the implementing regulations at issue

22. Before the Court, two possible interpretations of the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ as used in the implementing regulations at issue have, in essence, been put forward. According to the first approach, supported by the defendant companies before the referring court, the words should be interpreted restrictively as referring exclusively to the direct ‘shipment’ of photovoltaic modules from Malaysia or Taiwan. According to that approach, such an interpretation is consistent with the concept of ‘country of dispatch/export’ within the meaning of customs legislation (24) and results in the exclusion of the imports concerned from the scope of the implementing regulations at issue.

23. According to a second approach, supported by the Commission and the Kingdom of Belgium, the words should instead be interpreted broadly, as covering not only situations of direct shipment from Malaysia and Taiwan, but also situations such as those at issue before the referring court, in which photovoltaic modules made up of photovoltaic cells produced in those two countries are assembled in third countries and shipped from those countries to the European Union.

24. It is therefore necessary to provide an interpretation of the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ as used in the implementing regulations at issue. In that regard, pursuant to settled case-law, for that purpose, it is necessary to consider not only the wording of a provision of EU law, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part. (25)

(a) The literal interpretation

25. As regards, in the first place, the literal interpretation, there appear to be some significant terminological differences among various language versions of the relevant provisions of the implementing regulations at issue.

26. A first group of language versions (the majority) uses words which appear to refer to the actual act of ‘send[ing]’ or commercial ‘shipment’. Thus, for example, the English version uses the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’, the German version uses the words ‘aus Malaysia und Taiwan versandte Einfuhren’ and the Dutch version, the language of the referring court, uses the words ‘verzonden uit Maleisië en Taiwan’. (26)

27. A second (minority) group of language versions of the implementing regulations at issue, which includes the Italian version (and also the Spanish and Greek versions), (27) by contrast, uses the term ‘proveniente’, which therefore refers not to the act of shipment, but to where the photovoltaic modules are ‘from’.

28. The French version, however, differs in that it uses both terms. That version, like the first group, uses the term ‘expédiés de’ to refer to Malaysia and Taiwan, but, like the second group of language versions, uses the term ‘en provenance de’ to refer to the People’s Republic of China, whereas the other language versions use the same term to refer both to Malaysia and Taiwan and to the People’s Republic of China.

29. The literal analysis of the various language versions of the terms at issue does not therefore make it possible to reach a definitive conclusion as to the meaning to be given to the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ under the implementing regulations at issue. Although the majority of language versions use the term ‘consignment’, which is consistent with the first of the possible interpretations put forward before the Court, referred to in point 22 of the present Opinion, other language versions use the concept of ‘from’, which is closer to the second interpretation proposed.

30. In that context, it is apparent from the case-law that, for the purposes of ensuring a uniform application and interpretation of the same text, the version of which in one EU language diverges from those in other languages, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part. (28)

(b) The contextual interpretation

31. As regards the systematic analysis, the terms at issue arise in the context of EU anti-circumvention rules on anti-dumping and countervailing duties. As is apparent from points 6 and 9 of the present Opinion, Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 are anti-circumvention regulations, whereas Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367 are regulations which, following review procedures, (29) extended the initial anti-dumping and countervailing measures relating to the People’s Republic of China, and which also provide for an extension of the related anti-circumvention measures imposed by those 2016 implementing regulations in relation to Malaysia and Taiwan.

32. In that regard, it should be noted that the rules on circumvention constitute a regulatory framework which, within the EU anti-dumping framework, has its own specific characteristics and therefore constitutes a special legal regime in that context. (30) Similar considerations apply to EU anti-circumvention rules on anti-subsidy measures. (31)

33. It follows that the concepts and terms used in the particular regulatory context of anti-circumvention measures – on anti-dumping or anti-subsidies – must be interpreted by reference to the system specific to that regulation and, thus, in the light of the specific objectives pursued by those provisions and the measures adopted on the basis thereof.

34. In the context of the present case, however, the referring court raises the issue of the interaction between anti-circumvention measures on anti-dumping and anti-subsidies and the provisions of customs law. It notes that in the Dutch language version (as in several other language versions referred to in point 26 of the present Opinion), the terms used in the implementing regulations correspond to those used in the customs legislation, both of which refer to ‘shipment’ [or ‘dispatch’] in the physical sense. It considers that the broad interpretation referred to in point 23 of the present Opinion is therefore contrary to the provisions of customs law which use similar terms to those used in the implementing regulations at issue.

35. In that regard, I note that whilst anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation, on the one hand, and customs legislation, on the other, both concern imports into the European Union, they constitute distinct sets of rules.

36. First, while they both fall within the exclusive competence of the European Union, they are autonomous in nature (32) and are founded on legal bases that are not identical. (33) Secondly, they aim to pursue different objectives. As noted above, the EU’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations constitute trade defence instruments aimed, in essence, at restoring fair conditions of competition in the internal market, by tackling unfair advantages arising from dumping practices or foreign public subsidies that cause injury to EU industry. (34) Customs law, on the other hand, governs all the rules and procedures applicable to goods brought into or taken out of the customs territory of the European Union, ensuring, first, the correct application of the duties provided for in the Customs Code (35) and, secondly, the uniform implementation of the customs rules throughout the territory of the European Union. (36)

37. The Court has consequently clarified that, despite the functional independence of the anti-dumping measures in relation to the common customs tariff, (37) the customs legislation nevertheless applies to anti-dumping or countervailing duties only if the regulations establishing such duties so provide. (38) That condition is satisfied in the present case where, as noted in points 8 and 9 of the present Opinion, the implementing regulations at issue expressly refer to the ‘provisions in force concerning customs duties’.

38. The specific legal framework of EU customs law may therefore, in certain circumstances, also be relevant, where appropriate, for the purposes of the interpretation of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy provisions. However, in so far as the terms to be interpreted are specifically included in the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules, they have an autonomous and distinct meaning within those rules and are intended to pursue the objectives of those rules. Therefore, they do not necessarily have to be the same as terms in the customs legislation (even if they are similar to those terms), and the interpretation of their meaning based on those objectives cannot be altered for reasons of consistency with the terminology of customs law. (39) That is all the more so where the interpretation in conformity with customs law is liable to undermine those objectives of EU trade defence rules and, in particular, anti-circumvention rules.

39. In the event of doubts arising as to the interpretation of concepts specific to anti-dumping or anti-subsidy law and customs law which are similar, the interpretation in the light of the objectives of the anti-dumping or anti-subsidy rules must therefore prevail. Moreover, in the present case, that approach is confirmed by the general character of the reference made in the implementing regulations at issue to the customs legislation, which is applicable ‘unless otherwise specified’ in those regulations.

40. In conclusion, it follows from the foregoing that as the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ used in the implementing regulations at issue are used within the regulatory framework of anti-circumvention measures on anti-dumping and anti-subsidies, they must be interpreted in the light of the specific objectives of those rules and of the measures adopted on that basis.

41. As regards the purpose of the anti-circumvention rules, it is apparent from settled case-law that the sole purpose of a regulation extending an anti-dumping duty is to ensure that the duty is effective and prevent its circumvention. Consequently, a measure extending a definitive anti-dumping duty is intended to protect the effective application of the definitive measures. (40)

42. It is therefore in the light of that objective, namely to ensure the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures adopted by the European Union and to prevent their circumvention, that the EU anti-circumvention provisions and the terms used in the measures adopted on that basis must be interpreted. (41) The same principles apply to anti-subsidy measures. (42)

43. It follows that an interpretation enabling operators to easily avoid the extension of the definitive (anti-dumping or countervailing) duty, by carrying out assembly operations in third countries, which risks undermining the effectiveness of the EU’s anti-circumvention provisions and measures, is contrary to the purposes of those provisions and measures. (43)

44. In the present case, the implementing regulations at issue establish a rebuttable presumption that photovoltaic cells consigned from Taiwan or Malaysia circumvent the anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures relating to photovoltaic cells and modules originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China. The only exception concerns cells or modules produced by businesses that cooperated with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and demonstrated that they did not engage in illegal practices. (44) Such producers, acting in good faith, cannot be regarded as having circumvented the initial anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed on Chinese products.

45. According to the proposed restrictive approach to the interpretation of the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ as used in the implementing regulations at issue, only ‘direct shipment’ to the European Union – of Malaysian or Taiwanese cells or modules containing such cells – carried out from Malaysia and Taiwan falls within the scope of those implementing regulations. The consequence of that approach is that the mere addition, along the way to the European Union, of a third country in which non-substantial processing is carried out – namely, the assembly of Malaysian or Taiwanese photovoltaic cells into photovoltaic modules which are then shipped to the European Union – would render the abovementioned presumption established by the implementing regulations at issue ineffective. Although the key components of the modules at issue – on the basis of which the ‘origin’ is conferred (45) – are Malaysian or Taiwanese cells subject to anti-circumvention measures, they would be excluded from those anti-circumvention measures. Such an interpretation would therefore undermine the effectiveness of anti-circumvention measures, the aim of which is to ensure the effectiveness of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties in relation to cells and modules and to prevent their circumvention. It would therefore run counter to the objectives pursued by the implementing regulations at issue.

46. By contrast, a broad interpretation of the terms ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’, corresponding to the concept of ‘from’ and not limited solely to ‘direct shipment’, thereby allowing situations of ‘indirect shipment’ referred to in the preceding paragraph to fall within the scope of the anti-circumvention measures, is such as to ensure the full effectiveness of those measures in a manner consistent with the objectives pursued by the implementing regulations at issue.

47. In that regard, it should be noted that, although it is apparent from the judgment in Kolachi that the concept of ‘from’ in the context of anti-circumvention legislation on anti-dumping duties and the concept of ‘origin’ within the meaning of customs law are not identical, (46) it is nevertheless apparent from that judgment that the concept of ‘from’ is a more flexible and broader concept than that of ‘origin’, (47) and is intended to simplify the burden of proof of circumvention on the part of the EU institutions. (48) In that context, it may be considered that the concept of ‘from’ includes that of ‘origin’. Where a product ‘originates’ in a country, it will, a fortiori, be ‘from’ that country. This is demonstrated by the fact that the implementing regulations at issue apply ‘whether [the photovoltaic cells or modules are] declared as originating in Malaysia [or] Taiwan or not’. As in the judgment in Kolachi, it is not necessary for the institutions to prove that the cells and modules originate in Malaysia or Taiwan; it is sufficient that they are ‘from’ those countries. However, if the modules originate in those countries, they will, a fortiori, also be from those countries and, therefore, the anti-circumvention rules will apply.

48. Moreover, contrary to the submissions of some of the defendant companies before the referring court, the broad interpretation does not result in an unlawful extension to South Korea and Vietnam of the anti-circumvention measures imposed in relation to Malaysia and Taiwan. There is no extension of those measures to South Korea and Vietnam; instead, the interpretation of the implementing regulations at issue makes it possible to prevent ‘circumvention of the anti-circumvention measures’. Producers of South Korean and Vietnamese cells or modules are not directly concerned by the anti-circumvention measures relating to anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties. There is no presumption – as in the case of Malaysia or Taiwan – established in respect of them. They are only concerned by this broad interpretation if they produce photovoltaic modules using, as key components of those modules, Malaysian or Taiwanese photovoltaic cells subject to anti-circumvention measures. In that case, as photovoltaic modules must be classified as originating in Malaysia and Taiwan, the anti-circumvention legislation relating to those countries will become relevant. Such an interpretation appears to be far from unreasonable with regard to producers in those countries which export photovoltaic modules to the European Union.

49. Moreover, the assertion, as put forward by some of the defendant companies before the referring court, that the legislator did not intend to include photovoltaic modules assembled in third countries in the anti-circumvention measures, does not appear to be correct. The implementing regulations at issue concern not only photovoltaic modules, but also photovoltaic cells as a key element of those modules. As noted, allowing a restrictive interpretation would deprive those measures of their effectiveness. As regards those implementing regulations, the intention of the legislator – which is certainly relevant for the interpretation of provisions of EU law (49) – was to prevent the circumvention of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures.

50. The broad interpretation is also consistent with the anti-circumvention system which, as is apparent from the case-law, is based on the responsibility of the importer, which always has the opportunity to demonstrate that the imports at issue do not fall within the scope of the anti-circumvention measures or that they fall within one of the exemptions provided for by those measures, namely, in the present case, that the photovoltaic modules contain cells produced by one of the exempted Malaysian or Taiwanese producers. (50) That interpretation is not in any way inconsistent with the case-law cited by the defendant companies. (51)

51. In conclusion, the interpretation of the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ in the implementing regulations at issue, carried out in the context of the anti-circumvention provisions and measures in relation to anti-dumping and anti-subsidies, in the light of the objectives of those provisions and measures, supports the broad interpretation of those words as referring to ‘from’ and not to ‘shipment’ in the strict sense.

2. The consequences for the obligations to make a customs declaration

52. In the second part of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks about the practical consequences arising from the interpretation of the words ‘consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan’ on the customs obligations of importers in the case of imports of photovoltaic modules such as those at issue. The referring court asks, in particular, whether those modules must be declared as having Malaysia or Taiwan as the ‘country of dispatch’, and which commodity codes must be used. That court has doubts as to whether it is actually possible for importers to complete the formalities required by the implementing regulations at issue.

53. In that regard, in accordance with point 50 of the present Opinion, in a system based on importer responsibility, it is for the importer, in order to be able to benefit from the exemptions, to demonstrate that the goods imported into the European Union may be exempted from anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. It is therefore the importer’s responsibility to meet the formal requirements of the relevant legislation and to indicate the various relevant TARIC codes. In the present case, therefore, in order to be able to benefit from the exemptions at issue, it had to be unequivocally apparent from the customs declaration that the photovoltaic modules at issue contained cells produced in Malaysia and Taiwan by producers exempted under the implementing regulations at issue, and all relevant documentation also had to be provided, including, as far as possible, all the information required.

54. The defendant companies, however, raise a number of questions, as set out by the referring court in its order for reference.

55. In the first place, the question arises as to the indication of the ‘country of dispatch/export’ in box 15 of Annex 9 to Delegated Regulation 2016/341.

56. In that regard, in some language versions, such as the English and Italian versions, in which different terms are used in the implementing regulations at issue and in the customs legislation, (52) the question does not appear to be problematic. However, in the language versions in which the same terminology is used in both instruments, such as the French version or the language of the proceedings, namely Dutch, (53) the use of the same terms may, by contrast, actually give rise to confusion.

57. In that context, I consider that, despite those linguistic inconsistencies, it is clear that the ‘country of dispatch’ referred to in box 15 above is the country from which the modules were physically shipped – which does not necessarily correspond to where they are ‘from’ within the meaning of the anti-circumvention measures – that is to say, in the present case, South Korea or Vietnam. That is apparent both from the notes to box 15, (54) as the referring court rightly notes, and from the use of consistent terminology in the other language versions, such as the English and Italian versions.

58. That said, however, as the Commission noted at the hearing, in order to demonstrate unequivocally that the photovoltaic modules at issue contained cells produced in Malaysia and Taiwan by exempted producers, it was entirely possible, and also necessary, to indicate, in box 33 concerning the ‘commodity code’, together with the relevant code for photovoltaic modules, the TARIC code relating to cells produced by the relevant exempted Malaysian or Taiwanese producers, with the TARIC additional code relating to the specific producer as indicated in the implementing regulations at issue.

59. In the second place, some of the defendant companies submitted that it was impossible to make and attach the declarations required by the implementing regulations at issue, in particular because there was no TARIC additional code for South Korean or Vietnamese producers of photovoltaic modules. However, on reading Article 1(2) of [Implementing] Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 and Article 4(2) of [Implementing] Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367 respectively, it does not appear that it was impossible in the present case to make and attach such declarations. First, those declarations must be made ‘by the producer or consignor’ that issued the invoice. In the present case, that entity appears to be the South Korean or Vietnamese producer which produced the photovoltaic module, and not the Malaysian or Taiwanese producer which produced the cell. It is not clear why that entity would not have been able to issue such a declaration. Secondly, as regards the content of the declaration, whilst the TARIC additional code for the South Korean or Vietnamese producer could not be included – as it does not exist because such producers are not covered by the implementing regulations at issue – the TARIC additional code (in addition to the name and address) of the Malaysian or Taiwanese producer of the photovoltaic cells included in the module, exempted from the anti-circumvention measures, could and should have been included instead, as explicitly required.

3. Conclusions on the first question referred for a preliminary ruling

60. It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ in the implementing regulations at issue must be interpreted as referring to where the photovoltaic modules at issue are ‘from’. Consequently, crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels, which were assembled in South Korea or Vietnam with photovoltaic cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan and were subsequently imported into the European Union from South Korea or Vietnam, must be regarded as having been ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’, within the meaning of those implementing regulations. Those photovoltaic modules or panels must be declared as having as their ‘country of dispatch’, within the meaning of box 15 in Annex 9, Appendix C1, Title II C of Delegated Regulation 2016/341, South Korea or Vietnam and must be indicated by the relevant commodity codes for photovoltaic modules or panels ‘[imported] from Malaysia or Taiwan’.

B. The third question referred for a preliminary ruling

61. By its third question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks whether the declaration on the commercial invoice in due and proper form must comply with the exact wording and formal requirements of the implementing regulations at issue (55) or whether importers can deviate from those wording and formal requirements, whether or not supported by other evidence which substantiates the accuracy and authenticity of the invoice declaration.

62. In that regard, it is apparent from the case-law that the provisions which provide for exemptions from anti-dumping and countervailing duties must be interpreted strictly. Such exemptions may be made only under certain conditions, in cases specifically provided for, and thus constitute exceptions to the normal regime for anti-dumping and countervailing duties. (56)

63. According to that case-law, the relevant provisions of the implementing regulations which lay down specific formal requirements for benefiting from the exemptions provided for therein must therefore be interpreted strictly. It follows that, in principle, exceptions to those formal requirements, the function of which is to attest to the veracity of information concerning imported products benefiting from the exemptions, should not be permitted. The declaration on the commercial invoice in due and proper form provided for by those provisions must therefore contain, as far as possible, all the elements and information required for inclusion under those provisions. Consequently, declarations which do not contain all the information required cannot, in principle, be accepted.

64. That said, however, an interpretation of those provisions refusing the grant of exemptions to an importer on the ground that there is no indication in the requested documentation of information which it is not possible to provide as it does not exist is, in my view, unreasonable and contrary to the principle of proportionality. Thus, as already stated in point 59 of this Opinion, in the present case, it was not materially possible for importers to indicate, in the declaration required under the relevant provisions, the TARIC additional code of the South Korean or Vietnamese producer, as that code did not exist, because those producers were not covered by the implementing regulations at issue. In those circumstances, the failure to mention the TARIC additional code in that declaration cannot, in my view, lead to the refusal to grant the exemptions at issue, in so far as the competent national authorities establish, where necessary on the basis of other evidence, the veracity of the statements contained in that declaration. That other evidence may consist, for example, of purchase invoices for photovoltaic cells issued by the Vietnamese or South Korean producer to the exempted Malaysian or Taiwanese producer.

65. Consequently, in my view, the answer to the third question referred for a preliminary ruling should be that Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 and Article 4(2) of Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367 must be interpreted as meaning that the declarations provided for therein must contain all the elements and information required under those provisions, with the exception of any element or information which it is materially impossible to provide as it does not exist. In such a case, the competent national authorities may, where necessary and appropriate, ascertain whether the necessary requirements for benefiting from the exemptions provided for in those implementing regulations are met, including, where appropriate, on the basis of other relevant evidence.

C. Some observations on the main proceedings

66. In addition to the answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, I consider it appropriate to make further observations, which may assist the referring court in resolving the dispute pending before it.

67. According to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with all those elements for the interpretation of EU law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not the referring court has specifically referred to them in its question. (57)

68. In that regard, the dispute before the referring court concerns criminal proceedings brought against the defendant companies in relation to conduct referred to in point 13 of the present Opinion.

69. It is clear from the considerations set out in the present Opinion that the interpretation of the term ‘consigned from’ (in all languages and, in particular, in Dutch) in the context of the anti-circumvention measures at issue is not entirely clear, in particular as regards the terminological overlap with the term ‘country of dispatch’ in the customs legislation. (58) Such uncertainty may therefore also have implications in relation to the correct use of the corresponding commodity codes and, consequently, the extent and proportionality of the penalties to be imposed in the event of a possible infringement.

70. In accordance with settled case-law, it is for the Member State to determine the nature of the penalties (administrative or criminal) to be imposed in the event of failure to comply with EU legislation. Those penalties must, in any event, be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. (59)

71. That said, it is for the referring court to determine, in the light of the specific circumstances and elements of each case before it and according to the provisions of its legal order, whether the situation of potential legal uncertainty as to the meaning to be given to the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ in Dutch may justify the imposition of a criminal penalty in the main proceedings for the conduct at issue, or may possibly constitute a mitigating factor in relation to criminal liability.

72. In that regard, I would merely observe, however, that, according to settled case-law, the principle of legal certainty requires, on the one hand, that the rules of law be clear and precise and, on the other, that their application be foreseeable for those subject to the law, in particular, where they may have adverse consequences. That principle requires, inter alia, that legislation must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them, and that those persons must be able to ascertain unequivocally their rights and obligations and take steps accordingly. (60)

73. It is also apparent from the case-law that the principle of legality in criminal matters, laid down in Article 49(1) of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], which constitutes a specific expression of the general principle of legal certainty, implies, inter alia, that legislation must clearly define offences and the penalties which they attract. That condition is met where the individual concerned is in a position, on the basis of the wording of the relevant provision and, if necessary, with the help of the interpretation made by the courts, to know which acts or omissions will make him or her criminally liable. (61)

74. It is therefore for the referring court to draw, where necessary, the appropriate conclusions arising from those principles of case-law in the main proceedings.

III. Conclusion

75. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the first and third questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp, Belgium) as follows:

The words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ in Implementing Regulations 2016/184, 2016/185, 2017/366 and 2017/367 must be interpreted as referring to where the photovoltaic modules at issue are ‘from’. Consequently, crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels, which were assembled in South Korea or Vietnam with photovoltaic cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan and were subsequently imported into the European Union from South Korea or Vietnam, must be regarded as having been ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’, within the meaning of those implementing regulations. Those photovoltaic modules or panels must be declared as having as their ‘country of dispatch’, within the meaning of box 15 in Annex 9, Appendix C1, Title II C of Delegated Regulation 2016/341, South Korea or Vietnam and must be indicated by the relevant commodity codes for photovoltaic modules or panels ‘[imported] from Malaysia or Taiwan’.

Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 and Article 4(2) of Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367 must be interpreted as meaning that the declarations provided for therein must contain all the elements required under those provisions, with the exception of any evidence or information which it is materially impossible to provide as it does not exist. In such a case, the competent national authorities may, where necessary and appropriate, ascertain whether the necessary requirements for benefiting from the exemptions provided for in those implementing regulations are met on the basis of other relevant evidence.

1 Original language: Italian.

2 In that regard, see also Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (C‑709/17 P, EU:C:2019:303, point 1).

3 NV Jas Forwarding Worldwide (Belgium), Gerlach & Co NV, BO Baywa r.e. Solar Systems S.A.R.L, BO Bejulo, BO Memodo, BO Densys pv5, BO HelioActive Rendszerintegrátor and BO Donauer Solar Systems.

4 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1).

5 Council [Implementing] Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 [of 2 December 2013] imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and [key] components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66).

6 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not (OJ 2016 L 37, p. 56).

7 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/185 of 11 February 2016 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not (OJ 2016 L 37, p. 76).

8 See Article 1(1) of Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185.

9 See Article 1(1) of Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185.

10 See, in particular, Article 1(2) of Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185.

11 See Article 1(4) of Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185.

12 Commission Implementing Regulation of 1 March 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council and terminating the partial interim review investigation pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (OJ 2017 L 56, p. 1) […].

13 Commission Implementing Regulation of 1 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council and terminating the partial interim review investigation pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (OJ 2017 L 56, p. 131) […].

14 See recitals 783 and 784 of Implementing Regulation 2017/366 and recitals 372 and 373 of Implementing Regulation 2017/367.

15 See recital 786 and Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulation 2017/366 and recital 375 and Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulation 2017/367.

16 See Article 4(3) of Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367.

17 The photovoltaic modules were indicated as originating in and consigned from Taiwan on only two occasions; see paragraph 3 of the order for reference.

18 With the exception of the two cases referred to in the previous footnote.

19 Entitled ‘formalities for release for free circulation, end-use, inward processing, temporary admission and customs warehousing’.

20 Commission Delegated Regulation of 17 December 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards transitional rules for certain provisions of the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (OJ 2016 L 69, p. 1).

21 DCM(2019)10202.

22 See the title, recitals 5, 6, 17 and 18 and Article 1(1) and (3) of Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185, and Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367.

23 The referring court refers to the judgment of 20 May 2021, Renesola UK (C‑209/20, EU:C:2021:400), concerning Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1357/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 341, p. 47). The issue is now governed by Article 32 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1).

24 See box 15 referred to in point 15 above.

25 See, inter alia, judgment of 12 September 2019, Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (C‑709/17 P, EU:C:2019:717, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited; ‘the judgment in Kolachi’).

26 The following language versions appear to belong to the first group: Portuguese (‘expedidos da Malásia e de Taiwan’), Slovak (‘odosielaných z Malajzie a Taiwanu’), Czech (‘odesílaných z Malajsie a Tchaj-wanu’), Bulgarian (‘изпращан от Малайзия и Тайван’), Croatian (‘poslanih iz Malezije i Tajvana’), Estonian (‘Malaisiast ja Taiwanist lähetatud’), Latvian (‘kuri nosūtīti no Malaizijas un Taivānas’), Lithuanian (‘siunčiamiems iš Malaizijos ir Taivano’), Swedish (‘avsända från Malaysia och Taiwan’), Danish (‘afsendt fra Malaysia og Taiwan’), Hungarian (‘Malajziában és Tajvanon feladott’), Polish (‘wysyłanych z Malezji i z Tajwanu’), Slovenian (‘poslanih iz Malezije ali s Tajvana’), Finnish (‘Malesiasta ja Taiwanista lähetettyjen’) and Romanian (‘expediate din Malaysia și din Taiwan’).

27 ‘Procedentes de Malasia y Taiwán’ in Spanish; ‘προέλευσης Μαλαισίας και Ταϊβάν’ in Greek.

28 The judgment in Kolachi, paragraph 88.

29 Pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21) and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55).

30 In that regard, see the observations in points 37 to 39 of the Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (C‑709/17 P, EU:C:2019:303 and the case-law cited therein).

31 The anti-circumvention rules on anti-subsidy measures, like the anti-circumvention rules on anti-dumping measures, have no basis in the [World Trade Organisation] (WTO) rules (see, by analogy, the observations of Advocate General Pitruzzella referred to in the previous footnote).

32 Customs legislation falls within the area of competence relating to the customs union referred to in Article 3(1)(a) TFEU, whereas anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules fall within the area of competence relating to common commercial policy referred to in Article 3(1)(e) TFEU.

33 Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules are based on areas of competence relating to common commercial policy (Article 207(2) TFEU), whereas customs law is also based on areas of competence relating to the customs union and customs cooperation (in particular Article 33 TFEU) and the internal market (Article 114 TFEU).

34 See, in that regard, judgment of 15 July 2021, Profit Europe and Gosselin Forwarding Services (C‑362/20, EU:C:2021:612, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited), and the Opinion of Advocate General Hogan in Jebsen & Jessen (C‑543/19, EU:C:2020:555, paragraphs 43 and 52).

35 See, to that effect, judgment of 27 February 2014, Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia (C‑571/12, EU:C:2014:102, paragraph 32).

36 See, to that effect, judgment of 11 November 1999, Söhl & Söhlke (C‑48/98, EU:C:1999:548, paragraph 48).

37 See, in that regard, judgment of 15 July 2021, Profit Europe and Gosselin Forwarding Services (C‑362/20, EU:C:2021:612, paragraph 68).

38 Judgment of 22 May 2019, Krohn & Schröder (C‑226/18, EU:C:2019:440, paragraph 33).

39 The autonomous and distinct nature of the concepts of anti-dumping law, as compared with those of customs law, was highlighted in the judgment in Kolachi (paragraph 90). In that regard, see also the Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (C‑709/17 P, EU:C:2019:303, point 81).

40 See, in that regard, the judgment in Kolachi (paragraph 96 and the case-law cited).

41 Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (C‑709/17 P, EU:C:2019:303, point 40).

42 See judgment of 4 December 2024, PGTEX Morocco v Commission (T‑246/22, EU:T:2024:880, paragraph 42).

43 See, to that effect, the judgment in Kolachi, paragraphs 102, 103 and 104, and the case-law cited.

44 The producers exempted are listed in Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 and Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367.

45 See, in that regard, judgment of 20 May 2021, Renesola UK (C‑209/20, EU:C:2021:400, paragraphs 43 and 50).

46 See the judgment in Kolachi, paragraph 90.

47 Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (C‑709/17 P, EU:C:2019:303, point 81).

48 See, to that effect, the judgment in Kolachi, paragraphs 91 and 97.

49 See, in that regard, judgment of 5 September 2024, W. GmbH (C‑67/23, EU:C:2024:680, paragraph 74).

50 See, to that effect, the judgment in Kolachi, paragraphs 92 and 97.

51 Those companies refer, first, to the judgment of 5 September 2024, W. GmbH (C‑67/23, EU:C:2024:680), which, however, falls within a completely different context to that of trade defence measures, namely that of the imposition of restrictive measures on account of the continuing serious violations of human rights by the military regime of Burma/Myanmar. Secondly, those companies refer to the order of the General Court of 26 June 2017, Megasol Energie v Commission (T‑152/16, EU:T:2017:446), in which, however, the General Court merely held that the applicant in the case had no legal interest in bringing proceedings.

52 Thus, in the English version, the implementing regulations at issue use the words ‘consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan’ and box 15 is entitled ‘[country of] dispatch …’. In the Italian version, the implementing regulations at issue use the words ‘provenienti dalla Malaysia e [da] Taiwan’ and box 15 is entitled ‘paese di spedizione …’.

53 Thus, in the French version, the implementing regulations at issue use the words ‘expédiés de Malaisie et [de] Taïwan’ and box 15 is entitled ‘pays d’expédition …’. In the Dutch version, the implementing regulations at issue use the words ‘verzonden uit Maleisië en Taiwan’ and box 15 is entitled ‘land van verzending …’ [(emphasis added)].

54 See paragraph 27 of the order for reference.

55 See Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 and Article 4(2) of Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367.

56 Judgment of 22 May 2019, Krohn & Schröder (C‑226/18, EU:C:2019:440, paragraph 46).

57 Judgment of 9 November 2023, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky MV (Scope of the Return Directive) (C‑257/22, EU:C:2023:852, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

58 In particular, box 15 in Annex 9, Appendix C1, Title II C of Delegated Regulation 2016/341.

59 Judgment of 26 October 1995, Siesse (C‑36/94, EU:C:1995:351, paragraphs 20 and 24).

60 In that regard, see, inter alia, judgments of 22 January 2026, AK Dlhopolec and Others (C‑590/24, EU:C:2026:41, paragraph 73); of 29 January 2026, Keladis I and Keladis II (C‑72/24 and C‑73/24, EU:C:2026:51, paragraph 163 and the case-law cited); [and] of 30 April 2025, Alenopik (C‑745/23, EU:C:2025:294, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

61 See, in that regard, judgment of 22 January 2026, AK Dlhopolec and Others (C‑590/24, EU:C:2026:41, paragraph 74 and the case-law cited).

Opinion of Advocate General Biondi delivered on 30 April 2026.###

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude