Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:768
Date: 2009-12-10
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Origin of goods
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Origin of goods – Determination (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 24) 2. Origin of goods – Determination – Substantial process or operation (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 24) 1. When interpreting Article 24 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the courts of the Member States may have recourse to criteria resulting from the list rules drawn up by the Commission with the aim of defining the terms in Article 24 thereof, and contributing to the determination of the non-preferential origin of goods, provided that that does not result in an alteration of that article. Those list rules, which do not have binding legal force, must have a content compatible with the rules of origin as set out in Article 24 thereof and may not alter the scope thereof. (see paras 13, 20-23) 2. For the purpose of determining the origin of goods classified under heading 7312 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, may cover not only such processing or working as leads to the goods which have undergone the process being classified under a different heading of the Combined Nomenclature, but also such processing or working as results, without such a change of heading, in the creation of a product with properties and a composition of its own which it did not have before the process. In the interpretation of the term ‘substantial processing or working’ in Article 24 of the Customs Code, the application of a single criterion, namely that of a change of tariff heading of a product, without any indication of the specific processing or working undergone by those goods, is liable to restrict the scope of that article. That criterion is not based on a real and objective distinction between the basic product and the processed product or on the specific material qualities of each of those products, and does not take account of the specific processing or working which resulted in the manufacture of the processed product. Although it constitutes an indication of the substantial nature of the processing or working of the product and it covers most situations, that criterion does not in itself enable all the situations in which the processing or working of the goods is substantial to be identified. (see paras 33-37, operative part)