Case: Pragon s.r.o. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, Inspektorát v Praze (Czech agricultural and food inspection). Referring court: Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Supreme Administrative Court). Language of the case: Czech. CELEX: 62024CJ0626. ECLI: EU:C:2026:414.
1. Facts: intra-EU supplements and Czech § 3d(3)
Pragon s.r.o. received food supplements from another Member State. Czech food law (§ 3d(3) of the Foodstuffs Act, implemented by Decree No 172/2015) required recipients to report arrival in advance — at least 24 hours beforehand, via an online form — together with data for risk analysis and planning of official controls. The duty applied to all recipients of supplements from other Member States, without individualised risk targeting.
The Nejvyšší správní soud asked whether Articles 34 and 36 TFEU and Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625 preclude such a regime.
2. Exhaustive harmonisation: assess the OCR, not Articles 34/36 TFEU
The Court recalled that Regulation 2017/625 establishes a single legislative framework for official controls along the agri-food chain. Article 9(7) provides that Member States may require operators receiving animals or goods from another Member State to report arrival — provided that this is strictly necessary for the organisation of official controls.
Food supplements fall within the concept of “goods” (Article 3(11) OCR read with the definition of food). The conditions under which the Member State of destination may impose an arrival-notification duty for supplements from another Member State have been exhaustively harmonised by Regulation 2017/625. National legislation is therefore examined solely in the light of Article 9(7) OCR — not Articles 34 and 36 TFEU (by analogy, inter alia, C-147/21 CIHEF).
3. “Strictly necessary” and exceptional circumstances
The wording of Article 9(7) requires that an arrival-reporting obligation must not only pursue the organisation of official controls but also be strictly necessary for that purpose. That condition implies that no less restrictive measures must be available. Article 9(7) derogates from Article 9(6) (controls carried out in the same manner regardless of origin) and must therefore be interpreted strictly.
Recital 37 of Regulation 2017/625 indicates that requiring operators to be informed of the arrival of animals and goods from another Member State should apply in exceptional circumstances. Recital 38 does not justify systematic controls “at the threshold” merely because goods originate in another Member State.
4. Why the Czech regime fails the test
The Court accepted that the Czech reporting objective (early risk analysis, control planning) can pursue a legitimate OCR aim. But the duty covers all food supplements from other Member States and all receiving operators. In light of the OCR’s safeguarding, exchange and information mechanisms (including Articles 9(1)–(2), 10(1)–(2), 11(1), 111(1), and administrative assistance under Articles 102–108), systematic notification of every supplement consignment does not appear necessary for risk-based official controls.
Member States have operator lists (Article 10(2)), information on controls and non-compliances in other Member States, MANCPs, and channels for intentional infringements. They can define individualised arrival-reporting duties on that basis — rather than a blanket.
Czech arguments about anabolics, pharmaceuticals, mislabelled vitamin content or heavy metals do not demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying systematic notification of all intra-EU supplements. Origin in another Member State does not in itself mean automatic risk — harmonised food-safety rules apply there too (Commission observation endorsed by the Court).
| Element | Arrival notification (Art. 9(7) OCR) | Market-placement notification (Art. 10 Dir. 2002/46 / GIS) |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | Arrival of a consignment / goods from another MS | Label model when placing a product on the national market |
| Addressee | Receiving operator (CZ model: every recipient) | Manufacturer or person responsible for placing on the market |
| Purpose | Organisation of official controls | Informing the authority about the product / label |
| After C-626/24 | General regime precluded; only “strictly necessary” exceptions | Intact — the Court itself points to Art. 10 as a less restrictive layer |
| PL example | Comparable “notify every intra-EU consignment” schemes — test under OCR | GIS notification (Art. 29 Food Safety Act) |
5. Critical distinction: do not conflate with GIS / Article 10
At paragraph 60 the Court recalls that Article 10 of Directive 2002/46/EC allows Member States to require the manufacturer or the person responsible for placing a supplement on the market in their territory to notify that placing by forwarding a model of the label used. That tool addresses risks linked to placing a product on the market — not reporting every consignment arriving from another Member State.
Judgment C-626/24 does not abolish GIS notification in Poland or analogous Article 10 notifications. It precludes (in the operative part) a national general, advance arrival-notification duty for supplements from another Member State imposed on every recipient. Operationally: challenge comparable “notify-every-consignment” schemes; keep market-placement duties separate.
6. Operational checklist for FBOs
- Separate in internal procedures: (A) product market-placement notification (GIS / Art. 10) from (B) any consignment arrival notice from another Member State.
- If the destination State requires reporting every intra-EU supplement consignment — check whether the regime is general/systematic; after C-626/24 that model conflicts with Article 9(7) OCR.
- Do not assume “origin in another MS = automatic risk” — the Court rejected that premise.
- Document less restrictive alternatives: operator lists, risk-based controls, OCR information exchange, individualised reporting for specific risks.
- For the Polish market: keep GIS notification and the importer map as the Article 10 layer — independent of C-626/24.
Related reading
In the notification / market-access cluster: GIS notification procedure, importer journey, claims vs notification — two layers. Separate line of case-law (FIC/UCPD overlap): CJEU C-301/25 Lidl Italia.
Glossary
- OCR
- Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls (CELEX 32017R0625).
- Article 9(7) OCR
- Power to require arrival reporting for goods from another MS — only where strictly necessary.
- Article 10 Directive 2002/46
- Option to notify the authority of placing a supplement on the market with a label model (CELEX 32002L0046).
- Strict necessity
- No less restrictive measures available; exceptional circumstances (recital 37).
Conclusion
C-626/24 answers a narrow question: does Article 9(7) OCR allow a general advance arrival-notification duty for every recipient of food supplements from another Member State? No — such a regime fails the strict-necessity condition. Assessment runs solely through the OCR (exhaustive harmonisation), not Articles 34/36 TFEU. At the same time the judgment does not abolish market-placement notifications under Article 10 of Directive 2002/46 — including GIS in Poland. For operators: separate the layers, challenge blanket arrival-notification, keep product notification.
Primary sources
- CJEU judgment of 21 May 2026, C-626/24, Pragon — CELEX 62024CJ0626; ECLI:EU:C:2026:414.
- Regulation (EU) 2017/625 — Article 9(7) (and context of Articles 9(1), (2), (6); Article 10; recital 37); CELEX 32017R0625.
- Directive 2002/46/EC — Article 10 (market-placement notification); CELEX 32002L0046.