A small case that answers a practical question: what counts as the “value” of a banned luxury good? The judgment is in Estonian and the translations are this site’s. It names the defendants, and this page does not, because they are private individuals and the sums are small.
The rule
Article 3h of Council Regulation 833/2014 bans selling, supplying, transferring or exporting luxury goods listed in Annex XVIII to anyone in Russia or for use there. Passenger cars worth more than €50,000 are on the list, under customs heading 8703 23 90 00. The ban on cars above that value was added by a regulation of 15 March 2022.
What happened
According to the judgment, one defendant bought a used BMW in Germany on 23 January 2023, through a Czech company he owned, for €59,571.43 without VAT. Two drivers collected it and took it to the Czech Republic, where the other defendant became the registered owner on 3 February. It was then to be taken to Narva in Estonia, handed to another driver, and driven across the border into Russia.
The papers prepared for the crossing described a different car:
- a Czech-language sales contract and a Lithuanian-language sales contract and customs declaration, each giving the value as €4,900;
- a description of the car as unroadworthy because of an engine and transmission fault;
- a sale to a named buyer in Russia, with a Russian-language notarial power of attorney.
The Lithuanian papers were obtained through a company in Marijampolė that the judgment says arranged the border documents. The car was stopped at the Narva crossing on 9 February 2023 because customs suspected its real value was above €50,000.
What the court decided about value
The defendants argued that only the car’s value in Czechia mattered and that the value was not proved. The Tartu Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that “value” in the regulation is an EU concept and that Estonian private law does not decide it. Relying on the European Commission’s guidance, it said the value of the goods is their statistical value, which is the price actually paid or payable, disregarding fictitious values; and that if the declared price does not match the average market price, the market price is the basis.
Applying that, the court found that €4,900 “obviously” did not match the car’s market value, that the engine defect was false, and that a later contract showing a sale at €49,000 did not match it either. The price paid in Germany, about €59,600, was itself enough to show the value exceeded the threshold, and a valuation put the market value at €62,000 on 15 February 2023 and noted that comparable cars were on sale from €70,000.
The outcome
The Viru County Court convicted both men of attempting to breach the ban on 14 August 2025, fined them €3,000 and €2,000, and confiscated the car. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on 6 March 2026, changing only the county court’s reasoning on how the car’s value was determined.
What the record shows
- The declared value is the first thing tested. The case turned on whether €4,900 was a real price, and the court compared it with what was paid less than three weeks before.
- Two customs systems were used for one car. The papers came from Lithuania and Czechia, but the border crossing was in Estonia.
- The same trade-misinvoicing idea applies at small scale. An understated value moved a good from banned to apparently allowed. See trade misinvoicing and third-country transshipment.