The Court of Justice Clarifies the Relationship Between Customs and Food Law

The Autonomous Nature of Customs Classification Remains the Starting Point

The Court begins by reaffirming well-established customs law principles. Goods must be classified based on their objective characteristics and properties as reflected in the wording of the relevant CN headings and legal notes. In the interests of legal certainty and the uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, the decisive criterion must, in principle, be found there. The key question is whether the fish concerned was fit for human consumption at the time of customs clearance.

The judgment also fits within the Court’s settled case law regarding the role of intended use in tariff classification. The intended use of a product may serve as an objective classification criterion only where that use is inherent to the product and can be established because of its objective characteristics and properties. Moreover, intended use becomes relevant only where classification cannot already be determined based on those objective characteristics and properties. This explains why the Court considered use as animal feed to be relevant, but not decisive. Ultimately, the assessment remains focused on the actual condition and objective characteristics of the fish itself.

These considerations are significant because they confirm that the CN remains an autonomous customs law instrument. Tariff classification is not determined directly by other areas of EU law. The Court therefore implicitly rejects the notion that a qualification under food law would automatically determine the customs classification of a product.

Food Law Is Not Decisive, but It Is Relevant

The most interesting part of the judgment is, in my view, found in paragraphs 65 to 67. There, the Court expressly addresses whether EU food law and food hygiene legislation may be considered when interpreting the concept of goods that are “unfit for human consumption”. The Court answers this question in the affirmative but introduces an important nuance. According to the Court, food legislation is not in itself decisive for classification under a particular CN heading. However, it may be taken into consideration when assessing the objective characteristics and properties of a product.

The Court therefore adopts a middle-ground approach. Food law does not determine tariff classification, but neither can it be completely disregarded. Put differently, customs law remains the governing framework for classification, while food law fulfils a supporting interpretative function.

Objective Indicators of Unfitness for Human Consumption

The Court then elaborates on the factors that may be relevant when assessing whether fish is unfit for human consumption by reason of its nature or condition.

First, the Court refers to the addition of acetic acid or other acids to unprocessed fish. It points out that, under EU food legislation, such products may not be marketed as food. The opinion of the competent food authorities that fish is thereby rendered unfit for human consumption may also be considered by the national court.

Second, the Court attaches significance to the exceeding of TVB-N thresholds. According to the Court, exceedance of the relevant TVB-N limits may indicate an advanced state of decomposition and, consequently, a risk to human health. Such findings provide evidence of the objective condition of the product and are therefore relevant from a customs classification perspective.

The Court also considers bulk storage to be relevant where certain fish within a consignment are already in an advanced state of decomposition. In such circumstances, contamination or spoilage risks may arise that could affect the suitability of the products for human consumption.

The Importance of Hygiene Requirements and Intended Use

The Court further places considerable emphasis on compliance with EU food hygiene legislation. According to the Court, breaches of those rules are relevant because the legislation is specifically designed to prevent health risks, spoilage and contamination of food products. Non-compliance may therefore indicate that a product is no longer objectively fit for human consumption.

Commercial documentation may also play a role. The Court held that documents demonstrating that the goods were caught, sold or processed exclusively to produce animal feed may constitute relevant evidence regarding the objective characteristics and properties of the products. Intended use alone is not decisive, but it may be considered.

Regarding the imported fish residues, the Court also considered it relevant that they had been classified as Category 3 material within the meaning of Regulation 1069/2009. This too may provide indications as to whether the goods are, by reason of their condition, unfit for human consumption.

A Balanced Approach to EU Regulatory Frameworks

Ultimately, the judgment confirms that different areas of EU law do not operate in complete isolation from one another. The Court preserves the autonomy of the CN while at the same time recognising that standards developed under food law may offer valuable guidance when interpreting open concepts such as “unfit for human consumption”.

This is where the broader significance of the judgment lies. The Court makes clear that customs law and food law serve different purposes yet regularly intersect in practice. Food law requirements do not determine tariff classification, but they may provide relevant guidance when assessing the objective characteristics and properties of goods. In practical terms, the judgment confirms that food law standards may assist in interpreting concepts used in the CN without undermining the autonomous nature of customs classification. As such, the ruling is likely to be relevant far beyond the fisheries sector and may influence future cases at the crossroads of different EU regulatory regimes.

Ploum’s Customs, Trade & Logistics Practice

Within Ploum’s Customs, Trade & Logistics practice, we advise businesses on customs, food, product compliance and market regulation issues from both a European and international perspective. Our work extends beyond tariff classification, origin and customs procedures to include the interaction between customs law and product safety, food law, sanctions and market surveillance rules. The FF Skagen judgment demonstrates that issues arising at the intersection of customs and food law cannot always be assessed from a single legal perspective. Where these regulatory frameworks converge, an integrated legal analysis is essential.