T-589/24

Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) 15 April 2026 (*) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union – Customs Code – Outward processing procedure – Authorisation – Fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) and Article 85 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 211(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Placement for export at a customs office not designated in the authorisation and situated in a Member State other than that which granted the authorisation – Customs debt incurred through non-compliance – Relief – Article 86(6) of Regulation No 952/2013 – Customs debt incurred pursuant to Article 77(1)(a) of Regulation No 952/2013 ) In Case T‑589/24, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court, Germany), made by decision of 6 August 2024, received at the Court of Justice on 30 October 2024, in the proceedings A-GmbH v Hauptzollamt C, THE GENERAL COURT (Chamber giving preliminary rulings), composed, at the time of the deliberations, of S. Papasavvas, President, T. Pynnä, J. Laitenberger, G. Hesse (Rapporteur) and I. Dimitrakopoulos, Judges, Advocate General: M. Brkan, Registrar: P. Cullen, Administrator, having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 15 November 2024, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 50b of that statute, having regard to the written part of the procedure, further to the hearing on 8 September 2025, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: –        A-GmbH, by K. Felderhoff, Rechtsanwalt, P. Witte and H.‑M. Wolffgang, tax advisors, –        the Belgian Government, by S. Baeyens and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, –        the European Commission, by B. Eggers and F. Moro, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 November 2025, gives the following Judgment 1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b), Article 85, Article 145(1) and Article 150(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) (‘the Community Customs Code’) as well as Article 77(1)(a), Article 86(6), Article 211(1)(a) and Article 259(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2013 L 287, p. 90) (‘the Union Customs Code’). 2        The request has been made in proceedings between A-GmbH and Hauptzollamt C (Principal Customs Office C, Germany) concerning the use, by A-GmbH, of an authorisation for outward processing granted by Principal Customs Office C to place Union goods under the outward processing customs procedure at a customs office situated in the Netherlands which was not designated in that authorisation.  Legal framework 3        The Community Customs Code was annulled and replaced, as of 1 May 2016, by the Union Customs Code. However, in view of the date of the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, the Community Customs Code remains applicable to that dispute in so far as those facts concern the period from 29 June 2015 to 30 April 2016.  The Community Customs Code 4        Section 3 of Chapter 2 in Title IV of the Community Customs Code was entitled ‘Suspensive arrangements and customs procedures with economic impact’. Point A of that section contained ‘provisions common to several procedures’. Articles 84 and 85 of that code formed part of that point A. 5        The fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) of the Community Customs Code stated: ‘1.      In Articles 85 to 90: … (b)      where the term “customs procedure with economic impact” is used, it is understood as applying to the following arrangements: … –        outward processing.’ 6        Article 85 of the Community Customs Code stipulated: ‘The use of any customs procedure with economic impact shall be conditional upon authorisation being issued by the customs authorities.’ 7        The second indent of Article 114(2)(c) of the Community Customs Code provided: ‘The following expressions shall have the following meanings: … (c)      processing operations: –        … –        the processing of goods’. 8        Under Article 145 of the Community Customs Code: ‘1.      The outward processing procedure shall, without prejudice to the provisions governing specific fields relating to the standard exchange system laid down in Articles 154 to 159 or to Article 123, allow Community goods to be exported temporarily from the customs territory of the Community in order to undergo processing operations and the products resulting from those operations to be released for free circulation with total or partial relief from import duties. … 3.      The following definitions shall apply: (a)      “temporary export goods” means goods placed under the outward processing procedure; (b)      “processing operations” means the operations referred to in Article 114(2)(c), first, second and third indents; (c)      “compensating products” means all products resulting from processing operations; …’ 9        Article 148 of the Community Customs Code provided: ‘Authorisation shall be granted only: … (b)      where it is considered that it will be possible to establish that the compensating products have resulted from processing of the temporary export goods. The cases in which derogations from this subparagraph may apply and the conditions under which such derogations shall apply shall be determined in accordance with the committee procedure [of the Customs Code]; (c)      where authorisation to use the outward processing procedure is not liable seriously to harm the essential interests of Community processors (economic conditions).’ 10      Article 150(2) of the Community Customs Code stipulated: ‘The total or partial relief from import duties provided for in Article 151 shall not be granted where one of the conditions or obligations relating to the outward processing procedure is not fulfilled, unless it is established that the failures have no significant effect on the correct operation of the said procedure.’  The 1993 Implementing Regulation 11      Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 of 17 November 2008 (OJ 2008 L 329, p. 1) (‘the 1993 Implementing Regulation’), stated: ‘For the purposes of this Regulation: … 13.      Single authorisation means: an authorisation involving customs administrations in more than one Member State for one of the following procedures: … –        customs procedures with economic impact pursuant to Article 84(1)(b) of the [Community Customs] Code, …’ 12      Article 496(f) of the 1993 Implementing Regulation defines ‘office of entry’ [referred to as ‘office of placement’ in the 2015 Implementing Regulation] as ‘the customs office or offices indicated in the authorisation as empowered to accept declarations entering goods for the arrangements’. 13      Under Article 500 of the 1993 Implementing Regulation: ‘1.      Where a single authorisation is applied for, the prior agreement of the authorities concerned shall be necessary, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 and 3. 2.      In the case of temporary importation, the application shall be submitted to the customs authorities designated for the place of first use, without prejudice to Article 580(2), second subparagraph. In other cases, it shall be submitted to the customs authorities designated for the place where the applicant’s main accounts are held facilitating audit-based controls of the arrangements and where at least part of the storage, processing or temporary export operations to be covered by the authorisation are conducted. … 3.      These customs authorities designated in accordance with paragraph 2 shall communicate the application and the draft authorisation to the other customs authorities concerned, which shall acknowledge the date of receipt within 15 days. The other customs authorities concerned shall notify any objections within 30 days of the date on which the draft authorisation was received. Where objections are notified within that period and no agreement is reached, the application shall be rejected to the extent to which objections were raised. 4.      The customs authorities may issue the authorisation if they have received no objections to the draft authorisation within the 30 days. They shall send a copy of the agreed authorisation to all customs authorities concerned.’  The Union Customs Code 14      Article 26 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Union-wide validity of decisions’, states: ‘Except where the effect of a decision is limited to one or several Member States, decisions relating to the application of the customs legislation shall be valid throughout the customs territory of the Union.’ 15      Article 77 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Release for free circulation and temporary admission’, is worded as follows: ‘1.      A customs debt on import shall be incurred through the placing of non-Union goods liable to import duty under either of the following customs procedures: (a)      release for free circulation, including under the end-use provisions; …’ 16      Under Article 79(1) of the Union Customs Code: ‘For goods liable to import duty, a customs debt on import shall be incurred through non-compliance with any of the following: (a)      one of the obligations laid down in the customs legislation concerning the introduction of non-Union goods into the customs territory of the Union, their removal from customs supervision, or the movement, processing, storage, temporary storage, temporary admission or disposal of such goods within that territory; (b)      one of the obligations laid down in the customs legislation concerning the end-use of goods within the customs territory of the Union; (c)      a condition governing the placing of non-Union goods under a customs procedure or the granting, by virtue of the end-use of the goods, of duty exemption or a reduced rate of import duty.’ 17      Under Article 82(1) of the Union Customs Code: ‘For goods liable to export duty, a customs debt on export shall be incurred through non-compliance with either of the following: (a)      one of the obligations laid down in the customs legislation for the exit of the goods; (b)      the conditions under which the goods were allowed to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union with total or partial relief from export duty.’ 18      Article 86 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Special rules for calculating the amount of import duty’, stipulates, in paragraph 6 thereof: ‘Where the customs legislation provides for a favourable tariff treatment of goods, or for relief or total or partial exemption from import or export duty pursuant to points (d) to (g) of Article 56(2), Articles 203, 204, 205 and 208 or Articles 259 to 262 of this Regulation or pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty such favourable tariff treatment, relief or exemption shall also apply in cases where a customs debt is incurred pursuant to Articles 79 or 82 of this Regulation, on condition that the failure which led to the incurrence of a customs debt did not constitute an attempt at deception.’ 19      Under Article 173 of the Union Customs Code: ‘1.      The declarant shall, upon application, be permitted to amend one or more of the particulars of the customs declaration after that declaration has been accepted by customs. The amendment shall not render the customs declaration applicable to goods other than those which it originally covered. 2.      No such amendment shall be permitted where it is applied for after any of the following events: … (c)      the customs authorities have released the goods. 3.      Upon application by the declarant, within three years of the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, the amendment of the customs declaration may be permitted after release of the goods in order for the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned.’ 20      Article 211 of the Union Customs Code states: ‘1.      An authorisation from the customs authorities shall be required for the following: (a)      the use of the inward or outward processing procedure, the temporary admission procedure or the end-use procedure; …’ 21      Article 259 of the Union Customs Code stipulates: ‘1.      Under the outward processing procedure Union goods may be temporarily exported from the customs territory of the Union in order to undergo processing operations. The processed products resulting from those goods may be released for free circulation with total or partial relief from import duty upon application by the holder of the authorisation or any other person established in the customs territory of the Union provided that that person has obtained the consent of the holder of the authorisation and the conditions of the authorisation are fulfilled. … 3.      The customs authorities shall specify the period within which goods temporarily exported must be re-imported into the customs territory of the Union in the form of processed products, and released for free circulation, in order to be able to benefit from total or partial relief from import duty. They may grant an extension, of reasonable duration, of that period, upon justified application by the holder of the authorisation.’  The Delegated Regulation 22      Article 2(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation No 952/2013 as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1) (‘the Delegated Regulation’) provides: ‘The exchange and storage of information required for applications and decisions shall be subject to the common data requirements set out in Annex A.’ 23      Chapter 1 in Title I of Annex A to the Delegated Regulation contains a table entitled ‘Data requirement table’. Column 8b of that table (‘Application and authorisation for the use of outward processing procedure’) contains, for data element (‘D.E.’) 4/10 entitled ‘Customs office(s) of placement’, the entry ‘A’, which corresponds to a mandatory data element, that is ‘data required by every Member State’.  The 2015 Implementing Regulation 24      Article 261 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013 (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558) (‘the 2015 Implementing Regulation’) provides: ‘1.      The competent customs authority shall take a decision on an application without consultation of the other customs authorities concerned as laid down in Article 260 of this Regulation in any of the following cases: … (c)      the only activity involving different Member States is an operation where the customs office of placement and the customs office of discharge are not the same; …’  The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 25      On 1 December 2014, Principal Customs Office C granted A-GmbH, the applicant in the main proceedings, an authorisation for outward processing for the purpose of producing, at a company established in Switzerland, processed groundnut oil resulting from processing operations (‘the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure’). 26      The authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure designated two German customs offices (customs office W and customs office Z) as customs offices of placement, empowered in that regard to accept declarations for placing the temporary export goods under that procedure. 27      Between June 2015 and September 2017, the applicant in the main proceedings acquired, in the Netherlands, crude groundnut oil in free circulation. Those Union goods were declared, at a Netherlands customs office, for direct export to Switzerland with customs procedure code 1000 (permanent export without a previous procedure). Following the processing operations in Switzerland, the applicant in the main proceedings placed the processed product under release for free circulation in the European Union with customs procedure code 4000 (release for consumption with release for free circulation without a previous procedure). For the customs value, the applicant in the main proceedings stated the cost of the processing operations carried out in Switzerland and not the value of the imported processed groundnut oil. 28      Principal Customs Office C amended, with effect from 16 March 2018, the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure by inserting the abovementioned Netherlands customs office as an office of placement of the temporary export goods under the outward processing procedure. 29      By means of an import duty assessment notice dated 25 July 2018, Principal Customs Office C proceeded with post-clearance recovery of the customs duties on the ground that the applicant in the main proceedings was not entitled to use the outward processing procedure because it had not declared the Union goods under customs procedure code 2100 (temporary export under an outward processing procedure without a previous procedure) at one of the German customs offices designated in the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure. 30      The applicant in the main proceedings raised an objection to that recovery of duties by Principal Customs Office C. Furthermore, it had the customs declarations for the export of the crude groundnut oil amended by the Netherlands customs office to include in those declarations the outward processing procedure code (code 2100 in box 37) and a reference to the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure (in box 44). By assessment notice of 5 December 2018, Principal Customs Office C reduced the amount of duties to be recovered post clearance and rejected the objection as to the remainder. 31      The Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Germany), hearing an action brought by the applicant in the main proceedings, held that the applicant could not import the processed groundnut oil with partial relief from import duties on the basis of Article 145 of the Community Customs Code because it failed to make use of the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure and to place the temporary export goods under that procedure. 32      First, that court took the view that, even though Principal Customs Office C was in principle bound by the decisions of the Netherlands customs authorities, the applicant in the main proceedings lacked the authorisations necessary to benefit from partial relief. Second, that court found that that lack of authorisations was not without significant effect on the correct operation of the outward processing procedure, in particular because it had not been possible to ensure that the goods at issue could be identified. Moreover, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) took the view that the applicant in the main proceedings could not claim partial relief on the basis of Article 212a of the Community Customs Code, which was succeeded by Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code, as the applicant in the main proceedings had been grossly negligent. 33      In its appeal on a point of law (Revision) before the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court, Germany), which is the referring court, the applicant in the main proceedings maintains, in essence, that the fact that the export declarations had been made at a customs office which was not competent in Germany did not affect the application of the outward processing procedure, particularly because Principal Customs Office C had other means of ensuring compliance with the conditions for the identification of the goods at issue. 34      In that regard, the referring court is inclined to take the view that the decisions of the Netherlands customs office concerning the amendment of the export declarations were valid throughout the customs territory of the European Union and that the absence of a reference to the Netherlands office in the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure concerned only a formal requirement. The referring court stresses, furthermore, that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant in the main proceedings acted in bad faith. 35      However, the referring court expresses doubts as to the possibility of benefiting from partial relief from import duties in respect of the release for free circulation of processed products resulting from outward processing operations where the customs declarations for the placing of the temporary export goods under the outward processing customs procedure were lodged at a customs office not indicated in the authorisation for outward processing. 36      Lastly, the referring court has doubts as to the possibility, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, of applying the provisions of Article 150(2) of the Community Customs Code, concerning failures which have not had any effect on the correct operation of the outward processing procedure, or of applying, by analogy, the provisions of Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code, which allow the incurrence of a customs debt to be remedied in the event of an irregularity. 37      In those circumstances, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1)      Is partial relief from import duties after the implementation of outward processing under Article 145(1) of [the Community Customs Code] or Article 259(1) of the [Union Customs Code] precluded where the customs declaration for the temporary export goods has been accepted by a customs office which is not designated as the customs office for release into the customs procedure in the outward processing authorisation in accordance with Article 85 in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) of the Community Customs Code or Article 211(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code? (2)      Is Article 150(2) of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers only obligations subsequent to the placing of the temporary export goods under the outward processing customs procedure, or does Article 150(2) of the Community Customs Code already apply to the obligations connected with the lodging of the customs declaration for placing the temporary export goods under the outward processing procedure? (3)      Is Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code to be applied by analogy where the customs debt is incurred, pursuant to Article 77(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code, through the placing or release of compensating products for free circulation?’  Consideration of the questions referred  The first question 38      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether, in circumstances where a person to whom a Member State has issued an outward processing authorisation places Union goods intended for processing in a third country under the export procedure at a customs office which is situated in another Member State that has not given its prior agreement to that authorisation and which is not indicated in that authorisation as an office of placement, Article 85 of the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) of that code, and Article 211(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code preclude partial relief from import duties under the outward-processing procedure, provided for in Article 145(1) of the Community Customs Code and in Article 259(1) of the Union Customs Code. 39      In that regard, it must be borne in mind, from the outset, that the outward processing procedure allows goods to be exported temporarily from the customs territory of the European Union in order to undergo processing operations and allows the products resulting from those operations, known as ‘compensating products’, to be released for free circulation with total or partial relief from import duties. 40      The first question concerns both the provisions of the Community Customs Code, applicable to the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings for the period from 29 June 2015 to 30 April 2016, and the provisions of the Union Customs Code, applicable to those facts for the period from 1 May 2016 to 11 September 2017. It is appropriate to examine the part of that question concerning the Community Customs Code and the part of that question concerning the Union Customs Code separately.  The first question in so far as it concerns the Community Customs Code 41      Article 85 of the Community Customs Code provides that the use of any customs procedure with economic impact is to be conditional upon authorisation being issued by the customs authorities. 42      More specifically, it follows from the wording of Article 85 of the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) of that code, that use of the outward processing procedure requires an authorisation to be issued beforehand. The rationale of the obligation to apply for that prior authorisation lies in particular in the need to verify, within the context of special supervision, whether the compensating products are the result of processing of the temporary export goods. 43      Moreover, Article 148(b) of the Community Customs Code provides that an authorisation to use the outward processing procedure is, in principle, granted only where it is possible to establish that the compensating products have resulted from processing of the temporary export goods. 44      Lastly, it follows from Article 496(f) of the 1993 Implementing Regulation that the office or offices of entry (or office or offices of placement) indicated in the authorisation for outward processing are those empowered to accept declarations for entering goods into the outward processing procedure. 45      It should be borne in mind that the prior determination of the customs offices at which the temporary export goods may be placed under the outward processing procedure, especially in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where the customs office responsible for the export is situated in a different Member State from that of the office of discharge indicated, guarantees that the conditions of the outward processing authorisation are verified and that, if necessary, the appropriate measures to ensure identification of the goods are taken at the time of import, following the processing operations. The designation of a customs office of placement thus has a supervisory function which is central to the proper conduct of the procedure relating to outward processing. 46      It must be pointed out, in that regard, that the outward processing procedure, which involves total or partial relief from customs duties, is an exceptional measure intended to facilitate the carrying out of certain economic activities. Since that procedure involves obvious risks to the correct application of the customs legislation and the collection of duties, the beneficiaries of that regime are required to comply strictly with the obligations resulting therefrom. Similarly, the consequences of non-compliance with their obligations must be strictly interpreted (see, by analogy, judgment of 14 January 2010, Terex Equipment and Others, C‑430/08 and C‑431/08, EU:C:2010:15, paragraph 42). 47      Furthermore, as the Advocate General observed in points 29 and 30 of her Opinion, it follows from the provisions on the single authorisation, in particular Articles 500 and 501 of the 1993 Implementing Regulation, in force at the date on which the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure was issued in the main proceedings, that the customs authorities of a Member State to which an application for outward processing is made are obliged to communicate a draft authorisation to the customs authorities of any other Member State concerned by the implementation of the outward processing procedure. The prior agreement of the latter to that draft authorisation is obtained within the framework of the consultation procedure set out in Article 500(2) and (3) of that regulation. The grant of a single authorisation is, unless generally agreed upon between the customs authorities concerned within the meaning of Article 501 of the 1993 Implementing Regulation, conditional on that prior agreement. Consequently, in the absence of such an agreement, the outward processing authorisation granted by a Member State is not the same as a single authorisation and therefore is not applicable on the territory of other Member States. 48      The Community Customs Code thus precludes the application of the outward processing procedure in circumstances where a person, to whom a Member State has issued an outward processing authorisation, places Union goods intended to be processed in a third country under the export procedure at a customs office which is not indicated as an office of placement in that authorisation and which is situated in another Member State that has not given its prior agreement to that authorisation. 49      As regards the possibility of subsequently amending export declarations in order to place goods under the outward processing procedure retroactively, it must be pointed out that, in the main proceedings, the Netherlands customs office was designated by Principal Customs Office C as an office of placement competent for placement under the outward processing procedure with effect from 16 March 2018. Subsequently, at the request of the applicant in the main proceedings, the Netherlands customs office amended the export declarations for the crude groundnut oil in order to include in those declarations the outward processing customs procedure code (code 2100 in box 37) and a reference to the authorisation for placement under the outward processing authorisation (in box 44). 50      However, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the amendment of export declarations by the customs authorities of a Member State in order to take into account, retroactively, the outward processing authorisation issued by the authorities of another Member State cannot replace a prior agreement within the meaning of Article 500 of the 1993 Implementing Regulation. 51      Furthermore, such a subsequent amendment of export declarations cannot be based on Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code. 52      It is true that the Court of Justice has already held, in that regard, that subsequent amendment of export declarations within the context of a procedure governed by a customs procedure should be granted in certain cases. In particular, Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code permits amending a customs declaration after the goods have been released where the rules governing the customs procedure concerned have been applied on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information. Such an amendment may, however, only be done in compliance with the rules governing the placing of goods under that procedure. Accordingly, the objectives of the procedure – in the present case those of the outward processing procedure – must not have been threatened (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 January 2010, Terex Equipment and Others, C‑430/08 and C‑431/08, EU:C:2010:15, paragraph 65). 53      However, according to the information provided by the referring court, the conditions for placement under the outward processing procedure were not satisfied in the main proceedings. Similarly, the request for a preliminary ruling does not set out any evidence to show that the applicant in the main proceedings had intended to place the products at issue under that procedure when lodging the export declarations for the goods at issue or when they were reimported. Against that background, therefore, it was not possible to carry out monitoring at the time the goods were placed under that procedure and at the time the compensating products were reimported. In those circumstances, unless it is possible to carry out the necessary checks subsequent to the release of the goods, the objectives of the outward processing procedure, due to the impossibility to carry out that monitoring, were threatened within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 52 above.  The first question in so far as it concerns the Union Customs Code 54      Article 211(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code provides that an authorisation from the customs authorities is required where use is made of the inward or outward processing procedure, the temporary admission procedure or the end-use procedure. The wording of that provision is similar to that of Article 85 of the Community Customs Code in that an authorisation is required before being able to place the temporary export goods under the outward processing procedure. 55      By contrast, as the referring court observed in paragraph 48 of the request for a preliminary ruling, the provisions of the new legislation no longer require, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a single authorisation with the prior agreement of the competent customs authorities of the Member States concerned by an application for authorisation. Indeed, Article 261(1)(c) of the 2015 Implementing Regulation provides that use of the consultation procedure for the purpose of obtaining the prior agreement of the Member States concerned by an application for authorisation, as set out in Article 260 of that regulation, is not required where an application for authorisation involving different Member States is an operation where the office of placement is not the same as the office of discharge. 56      Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the table in Chapter 1 in Title I of Annex A to the Delegated Regulation, the office(s) of placement must be indicated in the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure provided for in Article 211(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code. As the Advocate General stated in points 54 and 55 of her Opinion, the placement of temporary export goods at the office or one of the offices of placement designated in that authorisation is an obligation that must be complied with in order for the outward processing procedure to be implemented. 57      It follows from the information provided by the referring court that the goods at issue in the main proceedings were presented, for the purpose of their exportation, at a customs office not indicated in the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure. 58      In that regard, as has already been pointed out in paragraph 45 above, it is imperative to determine first the office(s) of placement competent for temporary export under the outward processing procedure, so that the correct application of the procedure relating to outward processing can be verified. 59      As regards possibilities of amending a customs declaration, it must be stated that such possibilities have been reduced with the introduction of Article 173 of the Union Customs Code. Article 173(3) provides for the possibility for customs authorities to authorise the amendment of a customs declaration after the release of the goods, upon application by the declarant and within three years of the date of acceptance of that declaration, with the aim of allowing the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned. The Court of Justice has held, in that regard, that although that possibility qualifies the principle of irrevocability of the customs declaration, the fact remains that that possibility constitutes an exception to that principle, which must be interpreted strictly (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 June 2023, Zes Zollner Electronic, C‑640/21, EU:C:2023:457, paragraph 43). 60      As concerns, lastly, the fact that decisions relating to the application of the customs legislation are valid throughout the customs territory of the European Union, pursuant to Article 26 of the Union Customs Code, it must be pointed out, as the Advocate General did in point 32 of her Opinion, that the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure at issue in the main proceedings is not a single authorisation. In the absence of prior agreement of the competent Netherlands authorities, that authorisation was not applicable on the territory of Member States other than the one which granted it. Accordingly, the possibility for a customs office situated in a Member State to amend a customs declaration that would entail amendment of the authorisation granted by the customs authorities of another Member State – by inserting a customs office of placement that had not been indicated in the authorisation – would be at odds with the wording of Article 26 of the Union Customs Code. Indeed, that provision precludes an authorisation of the competent customs authorities of a Member State, the effects of which are limited to the territory of that Member State, from being valid throughout the customs territory of the European Union. 61      It is true that the German customs authorities amended, with effect from 16 March 2018, the authorisation for placement under the outward processing procedure by adding the Netherlands customs office as a customs office competent for the purpose of the placement of the goods marketed by the applicant in the main proceedings under that procedure. According to the information available to the General Court, the objective of that amendment was to authorise that customs office to accept declarations for placement under the outward processing procedure in the future, thus from 16 March 2018. That amendment cannot therefore allow the subsequent amendment of declarations for the export of goods drawn up before that date in order to place those goods under the outward processing procedure. 62      In those circumstances, the answer to the first question is that: –        Article 85 of the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) of that code, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation in which a person to whom a Member State issued an outward processing authorisation places Union goods intended to be processed in a third country under the export procedure at a customs office which is situated in another Member State that has not given its prior agreement to that authorisation and which is not indicated in that authorisation as an office of placement, the partial relief from import duties on the basis of outward processing provided for in Article 145(1) of that code; –        Article 211(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation in which Union goods intended to be processed in a third country are placed under the export procedure at a customs office which is not indicated as an office of placement in the outward processing authorisation, the partial relief from import duties on the basis of outward processing provided for in Article 259(1) of the Union Customs Code.  The second question 63      By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 150(2) of the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as applying only subsequently to the placing of temporary export goods under the outward processing procedure, or also when the declaration for placing temporary export goods under that procedure is lodged, that is, prior to that placement. 64      In view of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question. It follows from the answer to the first question that, in circumstances in which Union goods were placed, until 30 April 2016, for export to a third country in order to be processed there, at an office of placement situated in a Member State whose customs authority has not given its prior agreement for the adoption of a single authorisation for using the outward processing procedure, Article 85 of the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) of that code, must be interpreted as precluding the partial relief from import duties on the basis of outward processing provided for in Article 145(1) of that code. 65      Accordingly, as the Advocate General observed in points 38 and 39 of her Opinion, Article 150(2) of the Community Customs Code, which concerns only the conditions and obligations relating to the outward processing procedure, is not applicable to a failure such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in the placing of export goods at a customs office situated on the territory of a Member State in which the authorisation for placement under that procedure was not applicable.  The third question 66      By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code is to be applied by analogy where the customs debt has been incurred, pursuant to Article 77(1)(a) of that code, following the release of compensating products for free circulation. 67      Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code allows, under certain conditions, for a failure that arose in the context of the import or export of goods to be remedied. In the main proceedings, as the referring court states, the import of the goods at issue was lawful, with the result that the corresponding customs debt was incurred following the placement of those goods under release for free circulation, pursuant to Article 77(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code, a situation which is not covered by Article 86(6) of that code. 68      In that regard, it must be stated that there is nothing in the wording of Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code to indicate that that provision could apply by analogy to circumstances such as those referred to in Article 77(1)(a) of that code. Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code explicitly refers to Articles 79 and 82 of that code, which cover situations different from the release for free circulation provided for in Article 77(1)(a) of that code. That provision intends thus to remedy the failure to comply with any conditions stipulated, for example, for the placing of goods under a special customs procedure. In that case, the other conditions for the placing under such a procedure must already be satisfied, such as the lodging of the declaration at the customs office designated in the outward processing authorisation. 69      The answer to the third question is therefore that Article 86(6) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that it is not to be applied by analogy where the customs debt has been incurred, pursuant to Article 77(1)(a) of that code, following the release of the processed products for free circulation.  Costs 70      Since 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 GENERAL COURT (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) hereby rules: 1.      Article 85 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article 84(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation in which a person to whom a Member State issued an outward processing authorisation places Union goods intended to be processed in a third country under the export procedure at a customs office which is situated in another Member State that has not given its prior agreement to that authorisation and which is not indicated in that authorisation as an office of placement, the partial relief from import duties on the basis of outward processing provided for in Article 145(1) of that regulation. Article 211(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation in which Union goods intended to be processed in a third country are placed under the export procedure at a customs office which is not indicated as an office of placement in the outward processing authorisation, the partial relief from import duties on the basis of outward processing provided for in Article 259(1) of that regulation. 2.      Article 86(6) of Regulation No 952/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not to be applied by analogy where the customs debt has been incurred, pursuant to Article 77(1)(a) of that regulation, following the release of the processed products for free circulation. Papasavvas Pynnä Laitenberger Hesse         Dimitrakopoulos Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 15 April 2026. [Signatures] *      Language of the case: German.