Buying a used car from a private seller in Russia does not generate revenue for the Russian state on a scale that would help President Vladimir Putin in the war against Ukraine. With this reason, the buyer of a Mercedes from Russia defended himself against the seizure of his car by the main customs office. The legal dispute went all the way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The ECJ announced its judgment on Wednesday. The judges are convinced that the plaintiff’s objections are unfounded. According to the ECJ ruling, the import and purchase ban that the EU issued for a large number of listed goods from Russia does not depend on whether Russia benefits from the sale or export in individual cases. The ban applies “without the need to examine for each individual transaction whether the purchase, import or transfer in question generates significant revenue for the Russian Federation,” the ECJ clarified (judgment of February 5, case C-619/24).Mercedes purchase in RussiaThe plaintiff, a Russian citizen residing in Düsseldorf, bought a used Mercedes from a fellow countryman at the end of January 2023. The car was registered to him in Russia. The purchase price paid of five million Russian rubles currently corresponds to around 55,300 euros. For the customs declaration in August 2023, the buyer stated a value of almost 50,400 euros. On the day of registration, the main customs office seized the Mercedes and declared the customs declaration invalid, citing the EU import regulations for goods from Russia. The buyer objected and went to court. He was of the opinion that the main customs office had wrongly banned him from importing the car. The wording of the relevant EU regulation does not provide for such a ban in his case. The provision in question prohibits the import of the listed goods from Russia into the EU, “which generate significant revenue for Russia” and thereby enable Russia to take actions “that destabilize the situation in Ukraine”. Different goods are mentioned in the long list of bans: from crustaceans and lignite to soap and passenger cars. Plaintiff: Purchase price was insignificant in relation to the costs of the war. According to the plaintiff, the import ban should be read in such a way that in each individual case Russia actually generates considerable income, with the help of which Putin can worsen the situation for Ukraine. That didn’t happen with the purchase of the Mercedes. The purchase price is not significant in relation to the Russian war costs. In addition, the seller did not have to pay any taxes on the amount received. More on the subject The ECJ was not convinced by these arguments. The wording of the provision alone is not decisive, especially since the passage on “significant income” in the English or French version cannot be understood as meaning that it has to refer to each individual import, as the plaintiff believes. The ECJ ruling brings more clarity to the sanctions regime. If you look at the system of the EU sanctions regime and the purpose of the restrictive measures against Russia, you come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to examine in every individual case whether the respective deal provides Russia with income for the destabilization of Ukraine. The judges make it clear that the European Union has the power to determine the goods whose purchase or import would “presumably” bring significant revenue to Russia and which therefore fall under the ban. Otherwise it would be incomprehensible why there are exceptions for goods that are necessary for the personal use of a private individual. However, the ECJ emphasizes that luxury goods or products of above-average value are not covered by the exemption. The ruling brings more clarity and practicality to the EU sanctions regime against Russia, which is sometimes difficult to penetrate. A case-by-case assessment would be very time-consuming, especially since there would then be another dispute about when income would be significant for the continuation of the war of aggression against Ukraine.
Go to Source