Finish line only after 23 years

1. From annulment to repetition

The case started in a straightforward manner. In 2002, two customs transit declarations were not discharged. As a result, a customs debt arose. In 2003, the customs authorities issued UTBs.

In 2016, the Supreme Court annulled these UTBs because the interested party had not been heard beforehand. This is contrary to the EU-law principle of the right to be heard. The UTBs were annulled without referral. For many practitioners, such a judgment feels like an end point.

That turned out not to be the case here. In 2017, the customs authorities issued new UTBs for the same customs debt, this time following a correct prior hearing. The entire process started again: objection, appeal, higher appeal and ultimately once more cassation.

The case thus makes clear that a customs debt does not have only one procedural life. As long as the statutory time limits have not expired, it can be “revived” again.

2. Suspension of time limits: necessary, but at a price

Both under the former Community Customs Code (CCC) and under the current Union Customs Code (UCC), the time limit within which a customs debt must be notified is suspended for as long as legal remedies are pursued. This arrangement prevents litigation from automatically resulting in the loss of collection rights for the customs authorities.

The Court of Justice has previously held that such suspension is not contrary to the principle of legal certainty, even if procedures follow one another and the total duration is considerable. In this judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly aligns itself with that case law.

As a result, the notification period acquires an elastic character. Those who litigate may thereby extend the period during which the customs debt hangs over the market. In this case, that led to more than twenty years of uncertainty.

3. Legal certainty: more than knowing that it is possible

In cassation, it was argued that this outcome conflicts with the core of the principle of legal certainty. Legal certainty is more than the formal foreseeability of statutory rules. It also concerns the question whether legal relationships come to rest within a reasonable period of time.

More than twenty years of uncertainty regarding a fiscal obligation is difficult to reconcile with that premise. This is especially so where a UTB has been annulled by the highest court because of a fundamental breach of the right to be heard. This is not a minor procedural defect, but affects the very core of legal protection.

Reference was also made to the importance of final dispute resolution. In administrative law, the guiding principle is that disputes should, as far as possible, be resolved definitively. The UCC moreover refers to a rapid confirmation or correction of decisions taken by the customs authorities. The question then arises what the value is of an annulment by the highest court if it merely leads to a new round.

The Supreme Court does not follow this line of reasoning.

4. The judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court confirms its settled case law: annulment of a UTB relates to the manner in which the customs debt is notified, not to the existence of that debt itself. As long as the time limit — including suspension — has not expired, the customs authorities may issue a new UTB.

Article 44(4) UCC is not interpreted as an obligation for the court to bring a case to a definitive end, but as a general obligation of effort for the Member State. What is decisive is that the statutory framework is foreseeable for the economic operator, not the length of time for which uncertainty in fact persists.

5. What does this mean for practice?

This judgment confirms a structural characteristic of customs law: litigation corrects procedural errors, but does not necessarily close a case. Those who make full use of legal remedies may thereby actually prolong the lifespan of a customs debt.

This has tangible consequences. Customs files may remain financially open for many years. Provisions remain necessary, uncertainties continue to affect the annual accounts, and the file remains “alive”. Litigation is therefore not only a legal choice, but also a strategic and business-economic one.

For advisers, this means that managing expectations is essential. Obtaining legal vindication is not the same as achieving definitive clarity.

6. In conclusion

The judgment of 12 December 2025 is legally consistent, but confronting in its outcome. Legal certainty in customs law is interpreted primarily in a formal sense: as long as the rules are foreseeable, even a very long period of uncertainty is acceptable.

The message is clear. An annulled UTB is not a finish line, but often merely a pause. In customs law, time is not the ally of the economic operator.

While every care has been taken in the preparation of this publication, Customs Knowledge accepts no liability for any errors or omissions, nor for their consequences. This article is not intended as specific advice. Please also refer to the General Terms and Conditions of Customs Knowledge BV.