Provisional text

5 September 2024 (*1)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar – Prohibition on the import of goods originating in or exported from Burma/Myanmar – Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 – Article 2(2)(a) – Teak logs originating in Burma/Myanmar exported to and processed in Taiwan before being transported to the European Union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Article 24 – Concept of ‘substantial processing or working’ – Teak logs that have been debranched, debarked, sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids or cut into sawn teak wood in Taiwan – Certificate of origin issued by the Taiwanese authorities – Value of that certificate for the determination, by the customs authorities of the Member States, of the origin of those teak logs )

In Case C‑67/23,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), made by decision of 17 November 2022, received at the Court on 8 February 2023, in the criminal proceedings against

intervening parties:

Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of A. Arabadjiev, President of the Chamber, T. von Danwitz, P.G. Xuereb (Rapporteur), A. Kumin and I. Ziemele, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–the Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof, by P. Frank, acting as Agent,

–the European Commission, by M. Carpus Carcea, C. Hödlmayr and F. Moro, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

1This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1).

2The request has been made in criminal proceedings brought against S.Z. for failure to comply with the prohibition on imports of goods originating in or exported from Burma/Myanmar.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

The criteria of Annex III shall be taken into account, where relevant, when compiling the information in accordance with points 1 to 3.’

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a screening procedure carried out under that provision, a third party has provided the competent authority with objective evidence as regards the potential significant effects of that project on the environment, in particular on a species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, that authority must ask the developer to provide it with additional information and take that information into account before deciding whether or not an environmental impact assessment is necessary for that project. However, where, despite the observations submitted to that authority by a third party, the competent authority is able to rule out, on the basis of objective evidence, the possibility that the project in question is likely to have significant effects on the environment, that authority may decide that an environmental impact assessment is not necessary, without being required to ask the developer to provide it with additional information.

Gratsias

Passer

Smulders

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 March 2025.

Registrar

President of the Chamber

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15

Under recitals 6 and 7 of Regulation No 194/2008:

‘(6) For more than a decade, the Council [of the European Union] and members of the international community have repeatedly condemned the Burmese/Myanmar regime’s practice of torture, summary and arbitrary executions, forced labour, abuse of women, political arrests, forced displacement of the population and restrictions on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, movement and assembly. Taking into account the regime’s longstanding, continuing serious violations of fundamental rights, including the recent brutal repression of peaceful demonstrations, the restrictive measures in this Regulation are instrumental in promoting respect for fundamental human rights and thus serve the purpose of protecting public morals.

(7) The new restrictive measures target sectors which provide sources of revenue for the military regime of Burma/Myanmar. Therefore the new restrictive measures apply to wood and wood products, and to coal, gold, silver, certain base metals and precious and semi-precious stones. In these sectors, certain measures restrict imports, exports and investments. The list of entities to which the new restrictions on investment and financial assistance for exports should correspond to the list established in Annex I to [Council Common Position 2007/750/CFSP of 19 November 2007 amending Common Position 2006/318/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (OJ 2007 L 308, p. 1)] which lists entities in Burma/Myanmar involved in these targeted sectors.’

In Chapter 1 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’, Article 1 of that regulation provided:

‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) “import” means any entry of goods into the customs territory of the Community or other territories to which the [EC] Treaty applies, under the conditions laid down in Article 299 [EC]. …’

In Chapter 2 of Regulation No 194/2008, entitled ‘Import and purchase restrictions’, Article 2 of that regulation provided, in paragraphs 1 to 3 thereof:

‘1. Annex I shall include goods belonging to the following categories:

(a) round logs, timber and timber products;

(b) coal and certain metals; and

(c) precious and semi-precious stones.

(a) to import goods listed in Annex I, if such goods

(i) originate in Burma/Myanmar; or

(ii) have been exported from Burma/Myanmar;

(b) to purchase goods located in Burma/Myanmar which are listed in Annex I;

(c) to transport goods listed in Annex I, if such goods originate in Burma/Myanmar or are being exported from Burma/Myanmar to any other country, and their final destination is in the Community; or

(d) to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibitions in points (a), (b) or (c).

Annex I to that regulation was entitled ‘List of goods subject to import and purchase restrictions as referred to in Article 2’. The goods covered by CN headings 4403 and 4407 were set out in paragraph A of that annex, entitled ‘Round logs, timber and timber products’.

German law

Paragraph 34(4)(2) of the Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (Law on foreign trade and payments), in the version of 27 May 2009 (‘the Law on foreign trade and payments’), provided:

‘A person shall be liable to a custodial sentence of six months to five years if he or she

…

(2) fails to comply with a directly applicable prohibition, published in the Bundesanzeiger [Federal Gazette], on exports, imports, transit, removal, sales, supply, making available, transmission, provision of services, investment, support or circumvention of that prohibition, provided for in a legislative measure of the European Communities which serves to implement an economic sanction adopted by the Council of the European Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy …’

Regulation No 194/2008, which was directly applicable in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, was, in so far as concerns Article 2(2)(a) thereof which is at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings, published in the Bundesanzeiger on 22 October 2009.

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

By judgment of the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg, Germany) of 27 April 2021, S.Z. was sentenced to a custodial sentence of one year and nine months for infringing Paragraph 34(4)(2) of the Law on foreign trade and payments. The Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg) also ordered the confiscation, from W., of teak logs (‘the products at issue’) and a sum of EUR 3 310 902.98, corresponding to the value of the profits resulting from the infringement.

In that regard, that court found that, at the instigation of S.Z., the company concerned continued to import and market teak wood from Burma/Myanmar between October 2009 and May 2011, after the entry into force of Regulation No 194/2008, which prohibited imports of goods originating in or exported from Burma/Myanmar. That company’s supplier, established in Taiwan, had felled the teak trees in Burma/Myanmar, transported the logs from those trees to Taiwan, where it processed them in sawmills.

That court also found that those logs had undergone three types of processing in Taiwan. Some had merely been debranched and debarked there. Others had been debranched and debarked, and then sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids. Lastly, some logs had been sawn into planks or boards, that is to say into sawn teak wood. After that processing, the wood, bearing certificates of origin issued by the Taiwanese authorities, was transported by ship to Hamburg, where it was received by the company concerned.

That court considered that the teak wood at issue had, as a consequence of the processing it underwent in Taiwan, originated in that country, with the result that Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 which prohibited imports of goods originating in Burma/Myanmar, had not been infringed. That said, it took the view that, despite its removal to Taiwan and the sawing work it had undergone there, that teak wood remained a product exported from Burma/Myanmar within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation, and accordingly found that that provision had been infringed.

The Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice, Germany) (‘the Federal Prosecutor General’) concurred with the assessment of the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg). He considered, in essence, that, in the present case, the processing of the teak wood exported from Burma/Myanmar had only brought about a change in the origin of that wood without, however, making it different goods.

In that context, the referring court states, in the first place, that the import of the products at issue is a punishable offence under Paragraph 34(4)(2) of the Law on foreign trade and payments, read in conjunction with Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation No 194/2008, if the working or processing that took place in Taiwan was insufficient to confer a new origin on the teak wood at issue and that that wood therefore still originates in Burma/Myanmar, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a)(i) of that regulation.

The referring court is uncertain, in light of the judgments of 26 January 1977, Gesellschaft für Überseehandel (49/76, EU:C:1977:9), relating to casein, and of 23 February 1984, Zentrag (93/83, EU:C:1984:78), relating to beef and veal, whether the processing which the teak wood that was felled in Burma/Myanmar underwent in Taiwan, may be substantial enough for that wood to become, under Article 24 of the Community Customs Code, goods originating in Taiwan. It notes, however, that the act of cutting the raw teak wood to make it into sawn wood brings about a change of heading in the HS since wood in the rough, on the one hand, and wood sawn of a thickness exceeding 6 mm, on the other, come under HS headings 4403 and 4407 respectively. However, no change of heading resulted from the operations which modified the presentation of the beef and veal or the casein which were at issue in the cases which gave rise to those judgments. In the opinion of the referring court, a four-digit change of tariff heading could be an indication that the product has undergone substantial processing, since the HS is based on a system that progresses from natural products to those that have undergone more and more processing.

In the second place, the referring court notes that, if the sawing work that the logs underwent in Taiwan brought about a change of origin, the import at issue would constitute a punishable offence if the teak logs at issue were exported from Burma/Myanmar, thereby infringing Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008.

In that regard, in contrast to the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg) and the Federal Prosecutor General, the referring court is inclined to take the view that the phrase ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’, contained in Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation, should be interpreted as covering only goods imported into the European Union directly from Burma/Myanmar and not goods transported to a third country in the present case, Taiwan, and then to the European Union, irrespective of whether those goods have undergone, in that third country, processing or working which has conferred a new origin on them. If that interpretation were to be upheld, S.Z. would not have infringed Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation.

According to the referring court, the interpretation of that expression adopted by the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg) and the Federal Prosecutor General would deprive Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 of any independent scope and have the effect of making goods from third countries, which have been made from raw materials or products from Burma/Myanmar, subject to the prohibition on imports laid down in Article 2(2)(a) of that regulation, which was not the intention of the EU legislature.

In the third and last place, the referring court wishes to ascertain whether certificates of origin, such as those issued by the Taiwanese authorities, are binding on the customs authorities of the Member States when they examine whether the prohibition on imports laid down in Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation No 194/2008 has been infringed.

In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Is the term “originate in Burma/Myanmar” under Article 2(2)(a)(i) of [Regulation No 194/2008] to be interpreted as meaning that none of the following processing operations performed in a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) on teak logs grown in [Burma/Myanmar] brought about a change of origin, to the effect that teak wood processed accordingly remained “goods” that “originate in Burma/Myanmar”:

– Debranching and debarking of teak logs;

– Sawing teak logs into teak squares (debranched and debarked logs sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids);

– Sawing teak logs into planks or boards (sawn wood)?

(2) Is the term “exported from Burma/Myanmar” under Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of [Regulation No 194/2008] to be interpreted as meaning that only goods imported into the European Union directly from [Burma/Myanmar] are covered, to the effect that goods initially exported to a third country (in the present case: Taiwan), and then transported onwards from there to the European Union, were not subject to the regulation, irrespective of whether they had undergone working or processing conferring origin in that third country?

(3) Is Article 2(2)(a)(i) of [Regulation No 194/2008] to be interpreted as meaning that a certificate of origin issued by a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) – which states that teak logs originating from [Burma/Myanmar] that have been sawn up or sawn to size have, as a result of that processing in the third country, acquired a status of origin in that State – is not binding for the purposes of assessing whether there has been [a failure to comply with] the [prohibition on imports] laid down in [Article 2(2)(a)] of [Regulation No 194/2008]?’

Consideration of the questions referred

The first question

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 national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it. The Court may also find it necessary to consider provisions of EU law which the national court has not referred to in its questions (judgment of 7 September 2023, <i>Groenland Poultry</i>, C‑169/22, EU:C:2023:638, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).

37In its first question, the referring court made reference only to Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008.

38That provision prohibits the import of the goods listed in Annex I to that regulation if they originate from Burma/Myanmar. Paragraph A of that annex relates to the category of ‘round logs, timber and timber products’.

39Under Article 2(3) of that regulation, the origin of those goods is to be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Community Customs Code. In the present case, the relevant provision is Article 24 of that code.

40Under Article 24, ‘goods whose production involved more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture’.

41Consequently, it must be held that, by its first question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Community Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that debranching teak logs, debarking them, sawing them into the shape of wooden cuboids and processing them into sawn wood, constitute processing or working operations that determine the origin of the goods obtained from those operations.

<i>Admissibility</i>

43In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts provided for in Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which a dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions referred for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (judgment of 9 March 2023, <i>Sogefinancement</i>, C‑50/22, EU:C:2023:177, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).

44It follows that questions relating to EU law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court for a preliminary ruling only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 9 March 2023, <i>Sogefinancement</i>, C‑50/22, EU:C:2023:177, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).

45However, that is not the situation in the present case.

46Indeed, it is not obvious from the order for reference that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose. Moreover, it is clear that, first, the first question is not hypothetical and, secondly, the Court has before it the factual and legal material necessary to give a useful answer to that question.

47It is therefore necessary to rule on the interpretation of Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Community Customs Code, in relation to the three types of processing listed in the first question.

<i>Substance</i>

48It is apparent from Article 24 of the Community Customs Code that, where two or more countries are involved in the production of goods, the decisive criterion for determining their origin is that of the last substantial processing or working of those goods (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 May 2021, <i>Renesola UK</i>, C‑209/20, EU:C:2021:400, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).

49In addition, the determination of the origin of goods must be based on a real and objective distinction between the basic product and the processed product, depending fundamentally on the specific material qualities of each of those products (judgment of 11 February 2010, <i>Hoesch Metals and Alloys</i>, C‑373/08, EU:C:2010:68, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).

50The Court has already held that the term ‘last substantial processing or working’, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Community Customs Code, must be understood as referring to the stage in the production process during which the use to which the goods concerned are to be put is established, and they acquire specific properties and composition, which they did not possess previously, and which are not required to undergo significant qualitative changes subsequently (judgment of 20 May 2021, <i>Renesola UK</i>, C‑209/20, EU:C:2021:400, paragraphs 38 and the case-law cited).

51Accordingly, activities altering the presentation of a product for the purposes of its use, but which do not bring about a significant qualitative change in its properties, are not of such a nature as to determine the origin of that product (judgment of 11 February 2010, <i>Hoesch Metals and Alloys</i>, C‑373/08, EU:C:2010:68, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

52Consequently, operations of processing a product which do not bring about a substantial change in its properties and composition, because they consist only in dividing it up and altering its presentation, do not constitute a sufficiently pronounced qualitative change which could be regarded as having brought about the manufacture of a new product or even as an important stage in its manufacture (judgment of 11 February 2010, <i>Hoesch Metals and Alloys</i>, C‑373/08, EU:C:2010:68, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).

53In those circumstances, as regards the first type of processing, namely the debranching and debarking of the teak logs at issue, it is not apparent from the documents before the Court that that processing conferred on those logs the use to which they are to be put or any specific properties or composition, which they did not possess previously, and which are not required to undergo significant qualitative changes subsequently. On the contrary, that type of processing appears, subject to verification by the referring court, to be a straightforward processing operation which affects only the presentation of the wood. However, as has been noted in paragraph 52 above, such an operation cannot be regarded as having brought about the manufacture of a new product or as an important stage in the manufacture of the goods at issue and, accordingly, cannot determine their origin.

54As regards the second type of processing, namely the sawing of the teak logs at issue, debranched and debarked beforehand, into the shape of wooden cuboids, it also does not appear that, in the present case, that processing operation conferred on those logs the use to which they were to be put or any specific properties or composition, which they did not possess previously, and which would not be required to undergo significant qualitative changes subsequently, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 50 above. On the contrary, and as S.Z. and W. themselves have observed, that second type of processing is a necessary intermediate step for the production of sawn wood. That second type of processing therefore cannot be regarded as determining the origin of those logs.

55However, S.Z. and W. maintain that it is apparent from the judgment of 10 December 2009, <i>HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse</i> (C‑260/08, EU:C:2009:768), and from Annex 22-03 to 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), that a change of origin is, as a rule, established where the working or processing of the wood in the rough brings about a significant increase in the wood’s value, which must generally be greater than 30% to be considered significant. In the present case, according to S.Z. and W., the value of the teak logs at issue increased by more than 30% after they were sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids. In any event, they argue, even if the value of those logs had not increased by 30%, since sawing them into the shape of wooden cuboids requires special sawing equipment and can be carried out only by professionals specially trained to do so, that type of processing must be regarded as determining the origin of those logs.

56In that regard, it should be noted that, in the first place, concerning the value that the sawing of the teak logs at issue into the shape of wooden cuboids conferred on them, the Court has indeed held, as regards the question whether an assembly operation of different elements constitutes substantial processing or working, that there are situations where consideration on the basis of technical criteria may not be decisive in determining the origin of goods and that, in such cases, it is necessary to take account, in the alternative, of other clear and objective criteria, such as such as that of added value, which, in respect of goods composed of many different parts, makes it possible to explain what is meant by the substantial processing that determines their origin (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 December 2009, <i>HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse</i>, C‑260/08, EU:C:2009:768, paragraphs 30 and 31).

57However, the operation at issue in the main proceedings is not an assembly operation of different elements which consists of assembling a large number of parts to form a new coherent whole (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 December 1989, <i>Brother International</i>, C‑26/88, EU:C:1989:637, paragraph 13), but the sawing of a basic product.

58It must therefore be held that, in the present case, the alternative criterion of added value, which stems from the case-law cited in paragraph 56 above, is not applicable.

59In the second place, as regards the indications concerning products coming under HS heading 44 referred to in the table in Part II of Annex 22-03 to Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, on which S.Z. and W. rely, it must be observed that that delegated regulation is not applicable <i>ratione temporis</i>. That delegated regulation is applicable from 1 May 2016, whereas the imports at issue in the main proceedings took place between 2009 and 2011. However, those indications are identical to those set out in Annex 13a to Regulation No 2454/93, which was inserted into that regulation by Regulation No 1063/2010, which is applicable from 1 January 2011 and, thus, to the imports that took place from that date.

60That being the case, it is sufficient to note that that annex only lays down rules concerning the preferential origin of goods, and not rules relating to the non-preferential origin of goods, which is at issue in the present case.

61Lastly, as regards the fact, relied on by S.Z. and W., that the production of teak logs sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids requires special sawing equipment and can be carried out only by specially trained professionals, it should be observed that it is apparent from the very wording of Article 24 of the Community Customs Code that the processing of goods in an undertaking equipped for that purpose is not sufficient to make it substantial, within the meaning of that article.

62In those circumstances, it must be held that the sawing of the teak logs at issue into the shape of wooden cuboids, does not constitute substantial processing or working that determines the origin of those goods.

63As regards the third type of processing, namely the sawing of teak logs to make them into sawn wood, it appears that, contrary to what the Federal Prosecutor General maintains, that sawing does not consist merely of cutting the logs concerned, since it involves several steps; they need to have been debranched, debarked and sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids before being sawn into boards.

64In addition, the goods resulting from that type of processing are at an advanced stage of the manufacturing of goods intended, as in the present case, for boat construction. The processing logs into sawn wood may be regarded as the stage in the production process during which the use to which the goods concerned are to be put is established, and they acquire specific properties and composition, which they did not possess previously, and which are not required to undergo significant qualitative changes subsequently, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 50 above.

65That finding is confirmed by the fact that teak logs and teak logs sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids are classified under CN heading 4403 as wood in the rough, whereas sawn teak wood is classified at a more advanced stage of processing, under CN heading 4407.

66It is clear from the case-law that the change in the tariff heading of goods, caused by a processing operation, constitutes an indication of the substantial nature of that processing or working (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 September 2023, <i>Stappert Deutschland</i>, C‑210/22, EU:C:2023:693, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).

67Consequently, the third type of processing, which consisted in processing the teak logs into sawn wood, may be regarded as processing which confers Taiwanese origin on those logs, in accordance with Article 24 of the Community Customs Code.

68In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Community Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that:

–debranching teak logs, debarking them and sawing them into the shape of wooden cuboids do not constitute processing or working operations that determine the origin of the goods obtained from those operations;

–processing teak logs into sawn wood constitutes a processing or working operation that determines the origin of the goods obtained from that operation.

The second question

69By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the expression ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’ in Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers only goods that have been imported into the European Union directly from Burma/Myanmar.

70In that regard, according to the Court’s settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 14 May 2024, Stachev, C‑15/24 PPU, EU:C:2024:399, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).

71First, as regards the wording of Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008, the expression ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’ may, without further precision, include products imported both directly and indirectly from that country.

72That being so, concerning, secondly, the context in which Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008 occurs, it should be noted that that provision contains two prohibitions on imports from Burma/Myanmar, namely the prohibition on importing goods originating in that country, in Article 2(2)(a)(i) of that regulation, and the prohibition on importing goods that have been exported from that country, in Article (2)(2)(a)(ii) thereof.

73Article (2)(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 was intended, specifically, to ensure that goods that ‘originate in Burma/Myanmar’ came within the scope of that regulation even if they were imported into the European Union via a third country and not directly from Burma/Myanmar. That provision would be superfluous if Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation were interpreted as meaning that goods which were at some point present in Burma/Myanmar – even goods that once originated in Burma/Myanmar but no longer originate there due to substantial processing or working in a third country – came within the scope of the latter provision.

74Thirdly, it is clear from recital 6 of Regulation No 194/2008 that, in view of the longstanding, continuing serious violations of fundamental rights by the military regime of Burma/Myanmar, the aim of the regulation was to be instrumental, by renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of that country, in promoting respect for fundamental human rights and thus to serve the purpose of protecting public morals. In addition, it follows from recital 7 of that regulation that the new restrictive measures it provided for were intended to target sectors which provide sources of revenue for that military regime like wood and wood products. However, it is not apparent from those objectives of Regulation No 194/2008 that the intention of the EU legislature, when it adopted that regulation targeting Burma/Myanmar, was to subject all goods from third countries that have been made from goods from Burma/Myanmar to the prohibition on imports provided for in Article 2(2)(a) of that regulation.

75In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that the expression ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’ in Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers only goods that have been imported into the European Union directly from Burma/Myanmar.

The third question

76By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, when the customs authorities of the Member States examine whether that provision has been infringed, they are bound by certificates of origin issued by a third country which state that the goods concerned originate in that country.

77In that regard, it should be observed that Regulation No 194/2008 does not lay down any obligation to produce a document as proof of origin of the goods referred to by that regulation. Article 2(3) of that regulation provides only that the origin of those goods must be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Community Customs Code.

78As is apparent from Article 26 of the Community Customs Code, although EU legislation provides that the origin of the goods must be evidenced by the production of a document, the production of that document does not prevent, in case of serious doubt, customs authorities from requiring any supplementary evidence to ensure that the indication of origin does comply with the rules established by EU legislation in this field. In that respect, the Court has already ruled that the purpose of the verification after the event is to check the accuracy of the origin indicated on the certificate of origin (judgment of 30 June 2016, Selena România, C‑416/15, EU:C:2016:501, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

79It follows that the fact that goods are accompanied by certificates of origin is not a circumstance capable of preventing the recovery of duty due in respect of the import of those goods if, after that import has taken place, those certificates prove to be inaccurate (judgment of 30 June 2016, Selena România, C‑416/15, EU:C:2016:501, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

80It follows from that case-law relating to Article 26 of the Community Customs Code that, even where there is an obligation to produce a document, such as a certificate of origin, as proof of origin of the goods concerned, the customs authorities are not bound by that document. That is a fortiori the case where such an obligation does not exist.

81In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, when the customs authorities of the Member States examine whether that provision has been infringed, they are not bound by certificates of origin issued by a third country which state that the goods concerned originate in that country.

Costs

82Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006, read in conjunction with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

–debranching teak logs, debarking them and sawing them into the shape of wooden cuboids do not constitute processing or working operations that determine the origin of the goods obtained from those operations;

–processing teak logs into sawn wood constitutes a processing or working operation that determines the origin of the goods obtained from that operation.

The expression ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’ in Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers only goods that have been imported into the European Union directly from Burma/Myanmar.

Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008

must be interpreted as meaning that, when the customs authorities of the Member States examine whether that provision has been infringed, they are not bound by certificates of origin issued by a third country which state that the goods concerned originate in that country.

[Signatures]

*

Language of the case: German.