EuG · T-701/25

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

11 November 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Heading 1516 – Fats and oils and their fractions – Products manufactured from crude fish oil and containing between 60.5 and 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides )

In Case T‑701/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court, Germany), made by decision of 19 May 2025, received at the Court on 24 September 2025, in the proceedings

Fischölimporteur A

v

Hauptzollamt C,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of N. Półtorak, President, G. Hesse, G. Steinfatt, D. Petrlík (Rapporteur) and I. Dimitrakopoulos, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Brkan,

Acting Registrar: T. Henze,

having regard to the transfer of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 14 October 2025, pursuant to the third subparagraph 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 (d) of the first subparagraph 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 subparagraph of Article 50b of that statute,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Fischölimporteur A, by C. Salder, Rechtsanwalt,

–        the European Commission, by B. Eggers and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents,

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

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of heading 1516 of the Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’) contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), in the versions resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015 (OJ 2015 L 285, p. 1) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 (OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between Fischölimporteur A (‘the importer’) and Hauptzollamt C (Principal Customs Office C, Germany) (‘the Customs Office’) concerning the tariff classification of products imported from Chile, manufactured from concentrated omega-3 fatty acids obtained from crude fish oil (‘the products at issue’).

 Legal context

 The HS

3        The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (‘the HS’) was drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council, which was created by the Convention establishing a Customs Cooperation Council, signed in Brussels on 15 December 1950, now the World Customs Organization (WCO). The HS was established by the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, concluded in Brussels on 14 June 1983 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 3; ‘the HS Convention’) and approved, with its Protocol of Amendment of 24 June 1986, on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1).

4        The WCO approves, under the conditions laid down in Article 8 of the HS Convention, the Explanatory Notes and Classification Opinions adopted by the HS Committee established by Article 6 of that convention.

5        Under Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the HS Convention, each contracting party undertakes to apply the general rules for the interpretation of the HS and all the section, chapter and subheading notes of the HS, and not to modify the scope of the sections, chapters, headings or subheadings.

6        In the 2012 and 2017 versions of the HS, applicable to the facts at issue in the main proceedings, Section III is entitled ‘Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their cleavage products; prepared edible fats; animal or vegetable waxes’ and includes Chapter 15, which has the same title.

7        The general considerations in the HS Explanatory Notes to Chapter 15 state as follows:

‘(A)      This chapter covers:

(1)      Animal or vegetable fats and oils, whether crude, purified or refined or treated in certain ways (e.g., boiled, sulphurised or hydrogenated).

…

With the exception of sperm oil and jojoba oil, animal or vegetable fats and oils are esters of glycerol with fatty acids (such as palmitic, stearic and oleic acids).

…’

8        Heading 1516 of the HS is entitled ‘Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, partly or wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, re-esterified or elaidinised, whether or not refined, but not further prepared’.

9        The Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 1516 state the following:

‘…

This heading covers animal or vegetable fats and oils, which have undergone a specific chemical transformation of a kind mentioned below, but have not been further prepared.

…

(B)      Inter-esterified, re-esterified or elaidinised fats and oils.

…

(2)      Re-esterified fats and oils (also called esterified fats and oils) are triglycerides obtained by direct synthesis from glycerol with mixtures of free fatty acids or acid oils from refining. The arrangement of the fatty acid radicals in the triglycerides is different from that normally found in natural oils.

…’

10      Heading 1517 of the HS is entitled ‘Margarine; edible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of this Chapter, other than edible fats or oils or their fractions of heading [1516]’.

11      The Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 1517 state the following:

‘…

… The heading also excludes preparations containing more than 15% by weight of butter or other milkfat (generally Chapter 21).

…’

12      Classification Opinion 1516.10/1, adopted by the HS Committee at its 61st session held in March 2018, concerns the classification of a product under HS subheading 1516 10. That opinion was worded as follows:

‘1.      A product consisting of 90% of re-esterified triglycerides of highly concentrated omega-3 fatty acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) produced from raw anchovy oil. The remaining 10% of the product consists mainly of mono- and diglycerides. The product contains EPA (400 mg/g) and DHA (300 mg/g). Vitamin E (tocopherol) has been added to the product as an antioxidant. The raw anchovy oil has undergone the manufacturing steps of deacidification, ethyl esterification, distillation, filtration, bleaching, re-esterification and deodorization. The product is presented in barrels and will be used in the manufacture of food supplements.’

 The CN

13      As is apparent from Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2658/87, the CN, established by the European Commission, governs the tariff classification of goods imported into the European Union. According to Article 3(1) of that regulation, that nomenclature reproduces the six-digit headings and subheadings of the HS, with only the seventh and eighth digits creating further subheadings that are specific to the CN.

14      It is apparent from the file before the Court that the versions of the CN applicable to the facts at issue in the main proceedings are those resulting from Implementing Regulations 2015/1754 and 2016/1821.

15      Under the general rules for the interpretation of the CN, which are set out in Section I(A) of Part One of Annex I to Implementing Regulations 2015/1754 and 2016/1821, the following is provided:

‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles:

1.      The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions.

…’

16      Part Two of the CN, entitled ‘Schedule of customs duties’, includes Section III, which contains Chapter 15, entitled ‘Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their cleavage products; prepared edible fats; animal or vegetable waxes’.

17      Note 1 to Chapter 15 of the CN states as follows:

‘1.      This chapter does not cover:

…

(c)      edible preparations containing by weight more than 15% of the products of heading 0405 (generally, Chapter 21);

…’

18      Chapter 15 of the CN includes the following headings and subheadings:

‘…

…’

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

19      In 2016 and 2017, the importer declared, for the purposes of their release for free circulation, the products at issue under CN code 1516 10 90 10 1. Those products were manufactured from concentrated omega-3 fatty acids obtained from crude fish oil and contained between 60.5 and 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides. The other components were predominantly monoglycerides and diglycerides (‘partial glycerides’) produced as by-products of re-esterification. In addition, those products contained approximately 0.28% vitamin E (tocopherol) as an antioxidant.

20      The Customs Office issued import duty notices in which it classified the products at issue under code 2106 90 92 60 9, taking the view that the products with a triglyceride content of less than 85% did not fall within Chapter 15 of the CN.

21      The importer brought an action against those notices before the Finanzgericht (Fiscal Court, Germany), which adopted the same approach as the Customs Office.

22      The importer brought an appeal on a point of law against the decision of the Finanzgericht (Fiscal Court) before the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court, Germany), which is the referring court.

23      That court is uncertain as to the interpretation of heading 1516 of the CN. It asks whether the products at issue, consisting of 60.5 to 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides and, as to the remainder, predominantly of partial glycerides resulting from re-esterification, may be regarded as ‘fats and oils’ within the meaning of that heading.

24      In that regard, the referring court states that it is inclined to take the view, like the Customs Office and the Finanzgericht (Fiscal Court), that, in order to come under heading 1516 of the CN, re-esterified fats and oils must contain at least 85% triglycerides.

25      The referring court states that partial glycerides are neither fats nor oils, but lipid-like compounds or emulsifiers. Partial glycerides are, admittedly, natural components of animal fats, but the main components of the latter are triglycerides. The natural triglyceride content of animal fats and oils is generally well over 90%.

26      However, in the case of fats and oils within the meaning of heading 1516 of the CN, the minimum triglyceride content should be determined within a range typical of natural fats and oils. The approach of setting that minimum content at 85% would therefore be a plausible interpretation. That approach also corresponds, by analogy, to the information in Note 1(c) to Chapter 15 of the CN and in the Explanatory Notes to heading 1517 of the HS, which refers to a threshold of 15%. However, it is not clear how that information is relevant to the interpretation of heading 1516 of the CN.

27      In those circumstances, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘What is the minimum triglycerides content required for goods to be classified as “fats and oils” within the meaning of heading 1516 of the [CN] if they otherwise consist predominantly of [partial glycerides] produced as by-products of re-esterification?’

 Consideration of the question referred

28      As a preliminary point, it must be noted that, when the EU judicature is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria which will enable the national court to classify the products concerned correctly in the CN rather than to effect such a classification itself. That classification results from a purely factual assessment which it is not for the Court to make in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (see judgment of 4 March 2026, Heineken România, T‑691/24, EU:T:2026:166, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).

29      Furthermore, it must be stated that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU, providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. In that light, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (see judgment of 15 June 2023, NOVA TARGOVSKA KOMPANIA 2004, C‑292/22, EU:C:2023:492, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

30      In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the products at issue were manufactured from concentrated omega-3 fatty acids obtained from crude fish oil and that they contained between 60.5 and 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides. The other components were predominantly partial glycerides produced as by-products of re-esterification.

31      It follows that, by its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether heading 1516 of the CN must be interpreted as covering products manufactured from concentrated omega-3 fatty acids obtained from crude fish oil, containing between 60.5 and 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides and, as to the remainder, predominantly partial glycerides produced as by-products of re-esterification.

32      In order to answer that question, it should be recalled that, under Rule 1 of the General Rules for the interpretation of the CN, the tariff classification of goods in the CN is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes, the titles of sections, chapters and subchapters being provided for ease of reference only. In the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of that nomenclature and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see judgment of 5 September 2024, BIOR, C‑344/23, EU:C:2024:696, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).

33      Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that, although the Explanatory Notes to the HS and CN do not have binding force, they are an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff and, as such, may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation. The Explanatory Notes to the CN, which do not take the place of those of the HS, should be regarded as complementary to the latter and consulted jointly with them (see judgment of 20 October 2022, Mikrotīkls, C‑542/21, EU:C:2022:814, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

34      Similarly, although the WCO opinions classifying goods in the HS do not have legally binding force, they amount, as regards the classification of those goods in the CN, to important aids to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings of the CN (see judgment of 12 December 2024, Golden Omega, C‑388/23, EU:C:2024:1022, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).

35      As regards heading 1516 of the CN, to which the question referred for a preliminary ruling relates, that heading includes ‘animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, partly or wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, re-esterified or elaidinised, whether or not refined, but not further prepared’. That wording implies that, in order to come under that heading, the products concerned must be capable of being considered to be fats or oils or fractions of those fats or of those oils (judgment of 12 December 2024, Golden Omega, C‑388/23, EU:C:2024:1022, paragraph 32).

36      In that regard, it must be noted that neither the CN nor its Explanatory Notes define the terms ‘fats and oils’. However, the Court has already held that a characteristic specific to fats and oils is that they consist mainly of esters of glycerol and fatty acids, taking the form of triglycerides (judgment of 12 December 2024, Golden Omega, C‑388/23, EU:C:2024:1022, paragraph 38).

37      As regards, more specifically, the minimum triglyceride content which a re-esterified fat or oil must contain in order to be able to come under heading 1516 of the CN, neither the CN nor its Explanatory Notes contain any explicit information enabling such a content to be determined.

38      In that regard, in the light of the referring court’s question, it should be noted that such information cannot, in particular, be inferred from Note 1(c) to Chapter 15 of the CN. That note is, in fact, limited in scope in that it concerns only food preparations containing, by weight, more than 15% of products falling within heading 0405, entitled ‘Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk; dairy spreads’. Similarly, the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 1517 of the HS relate specifically to goods falling within the latter heading and containing butter or other milkfat.

39      In those circumstances, and in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 32 above, it is necessary, for the purposes of classifying re-esterified fats and oils under heading 1516 of the CN, to rely on the objective characteristics and properties of the products at issue, as defined by the wording of that heading and the relevant section or chapter notes.

40      In that regard, it is necessary to rely in particular on the characteristic of ‘fats and oils’ specified by the Court in its judgment of 12 December 2024, Golden Omega (C‑388/23, EU:C:2024:1022, paragraph 38), according to which a characteristic specific to fats and oils is that they consist ‘mainly’ of esters of glycerol and fatty acids, taking the form of triglycerides.

41      The Court provided that clarification on the basis of the usual meaning of the words ‘fats and oils’ in everyday language, referring to the chemical composition characterising those goods (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 December 2024, Golden Omega, C‑388/23, EU:C:2024:1022, paragraph 35). That usual meaning refers to fats and oils as obtained from animal or vegetable materials and therefore does not take into account the chemical processing which they may subsequently undergo.

42      That conclusion is confirmed by the fact that it was only after providing the definition referred to in paragraph 40 above that the Court noted, in paragraph 39 of the judgment of 12 December 2024, Golden Omega (C‑388/23, EU:C:2024:1022), that animal fats and oils and their fractions may undergo the chemical processes listed in the wording of heading 1516 of the CN.

43      As regards the re-esterification process, which is at issue in the main proceedings, the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 1516 of the HS state that re-esterified fats and oils ‘are triglycerides obtained by direct synthesis from glycerol with mixtures of free fatty acids or acid oils from refining’. Thus, by establishing equivalence between ‘re-esterified fats and oils’ and ‘triglycerides’, those notes define re-esterification as a production of triglycerides, without referring to the production of other substances, such as partial glycerides. Similarly, those notes describe the result of re-esterification, stating that the ‘arrangement of the fatty acid radicals in the triglycerides is different from that normally found in natural oils’. Thus, although those notes state that re-esterified oils differ from natural oils as regards the arrangement of the fatty acid radicals in triglycerides, they do not in any way indicate that those oils differ significantly from natural oils also as regards their content of triglycerides and partial glycerides.

44      It follows that re-esterified fats and oils, within the meaning of heading 1516 of the CN, must be understood as containing triglycerides with a content comparable to that which characterises the fats and oils in the natural state, that is to say, before any chemical processing of the type referred to in that heading.

45      It is apparent from the order for reference and from the Commission’s written observations that, although animal fats and oils in the natural state within the meaning of paragraph 44 above (‘natural animal fats and oils’) also contain a certain quantity of partial glycerides, their triglyceride content is generally significantly higher than 90%.

46      In that regard, the requirement that re-esterified fats and oils, within the meaning of heading 1516 of the CN, must have a triglyceride content comparable to that generally found in natural animal fats and oils does not render the inclusion of re-esterified fats and oils in the wording of heading 1516 of the CN meaningless. Indeed, as is apparent from Classification Opinion 1516.10/1 adopted by the HS Committee at its 61st session held in March 2018, which is annexed to the Commission’s written observations, there are products with a re-esterified triglyceride content of 90%. However, such a content may still be regarded, as the Commission points out in its observations, as comparable to that generally found in natural animal fats and oils. Similarly, it follows from a binding tariff information adopted by a German customs authority, also annexed to the Commission’s written observations, that there are products with a re-esterified triglyceride content of up to 96.5%. Moreover, the importer does not deny that the re-esterified fats and oils can reach such a triglyceride content, while specifying that additional, complex and costly separation processes are necessary for that purpose.

47      In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling and from the file before the Court that the products at issue contain between 60.5 and 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides. There is a considerable difference between such a triglyceride content and that generally found in natural animal fats and oils, as defined in paragraph 45 above.

48      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that heading 1516 of the CN must be interpreted as not covering products manufactured from concentrated omega-3 fatty acids obtained from crude fish oil, containing between 60.5 and 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides and, as to the remainder, predominantly partial glycerides produced as by-products of re-esterification.

 Costs

49      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 (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

Heading 1516 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016,

must be interpreted as not covering products manufactured from concentrated omega-3 fatty acids obtained from crude fish oil, containing between 60.5 and 83.7% re-esterified triglycerides and, as to the remainder, predominantly monoglycerides and diglycerides produced as by-products of re-esterification.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 November 2026.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: German.