Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:696
Date: 2024-09-05
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

summary and paragraph 15 of the grounds; of 29 January 1985, 
Gesamthochschule Duisburg v Hauptzollamt München-Mitte, 234/83, 
EU:C:1985:30, paragraph 27; and of 21 January 1987, Control Data v 
Commission, 13/84, EU:C:1987:16, paragraph 16). 
It can be concluded, therefore, that a scientific instrument or apparatus has 
characteristics resulting from the construction of that instrument or apparatus or 
from adjustments to a standard instrument or apparatus which make it possible to 
obtain high-level performances above those normally required for industrial or 
commercial use. At the same time, although the instrument or apparatus is 
primarily suitable for scientific activities, the possibility is not thereby excluded 
that it might also be suitable for other purposes. 
9 The applicant at first instance has explained that unless fish are tagged, 
scientists would not be able to research their migration patterns or growth or 
determine their survival rates. According to the applicant at first instance, 
therefore, the fish tags (or markers) must be regarded as instruments intended to 
mark the subjects of scientific research and which, by reason of their objective 
technical characteristics and the results they obtain, are exclusively or mainly 
BIOR 
 
7 
suited to scientific activities. The applicant at first instance also emphasises, and 
the State Tax Authority has not disputed, that the fish tags (or markers) are 
imported exclusively for non-commercial purposes: in order to tag fish with a 
view to studying subsequent populations. The State Tax Authority nevertheless 
considers that to classify articles used in scientific activity as scientific 
instruments or apparatus merely because they are used for a scientific purpose 
would be unjustifiably to extend the scope of application of the relief from import 
duties under Article 44 of Regulation No 1186/2009. 
Neither point (a) of Article 46 of Regulation No 1186/2009 nor the concept of 
‘scientific instrument or apparatus’ used in it have been interpreted by the Court. 
The Court has clarified the sense of the concept of ‘scientific instrument or 
apparatus’ and whether a particular thing (or article) meets the requirements to be 
a ‘scientific instrument or apparatus’ only in the context of Regulation (EEC) 
No 1798/75 of the Council of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common 
Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials. That 
Regulation has been repealed and, unlike Regulations No 918/83 and 
No 1186/2009, did not define the concept of ‘scientific instrument or apparatus’. 
Furthermore, Regulation No 1798/75 established an additional condition for relief 
from import duties, namely that no instruments or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value were being manufactured in the European Community. In any 
event, that provision, which is no longer in force, is irrelevant in the present case. 
Interpreting Regulation No 1798/75, the Court of Justice held that the concept of 
‘scientific instrument’ cannot be given a narrow interpretation but may, on the 
contrary, include materials manufactured on the basis of scientific discoveries and 
used not as a (passive) object but as a means of scientific research (judgment of 
the Court of Justice of 10 November 1983, Gesamthochschule Essen, 300/82, 
EU:C:1983:324, summary and paragraph 15). In a case concerning the import of 
glass flasks used in experiments, the Court of Justice held that the relief from 
customs duties provided for in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1798/75 was limited 
to items which, by virtue of their particular technical structure and functioning, 
themselves serve directly as a means of scientific research. On the other hand, an 
item which is used not as a means but only as an object of scientific research 
cannot be described as a scientific instrument or apparatus; that is to say, where 
research is carried out not by means of that item but on it, the item plays only a 
purely passive role in the scientific research process (judgment of the Court of 
Justice of 26 January 1984, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 45/83, 
EU:C:1984:31, summary and paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 of the grounds). 
The Court of Justice also held that certain components (parts) could be found to be 
a ‘scientific instrument or apparatus’ if they satisfied all the requirements laid 
down by Regulation No 1798/75 (judgments of the Court of Justice of 
15 September 1984, Universität Hamburg v Hauptzollamt München-West, 236/83, 
EU:C:1984:350, paragraph 18, and of 4 July 1985, Land Niedersachsen v 
Hauptzollamt Friedrichshafen, 51/84, EU:C:1985:295, paragraph 19). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 5. 2023 – CASE C-344/23 
 
8  
Accordingly, when it interpreted Regulation No 1798/75, the Court of Justice held 
that an object which, intrinsically, is not a means of research but a tool for 
performing scientific research cannot be regarded as a ‘scientific instrument or 
apparatus’, whereas objects which, by virtue of their particular technical structure 
and functioning, themselves serve directly as a means of scientific research can be 
regarded as ‘scientific instruments or apparatus’. 
In view of the argument put forward by the applicant at first instance that the fish 
tags (or markers) should not be regarded as merely an object used in the scientific 
research process but as a means of enabling scientific research into fish, that is to 
say, that the scientific research process would be significantly hindered if fish tags 
were not used, it is uncertain whether the interpretation of Regulation No 1798/75 
should be extrapolated to Regulation 2017/1925 and whether, accordingly, the 
goods imported by the applicant at first instance can be regarded as ‘scientific 
instruments or apparatus’. 
10 According to the Court’s consistent case-law, provisions of EU law must be 
interpreted and applied uniformly and the different language versions are all 
equally authentic and must therefore, in principle, all be given the same weight. 
Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU 
legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the 
purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see, to that effect, 
judgment of 8 October 2020, Combinova, C-476/19, EU:C:2020:802, 
paragraph 31). 
The definitions of the terms ‘apparatus’ and ‘instrument’ differ in the Latvian, 
English, French and German language versions. 
In Latvian, aparāts means a technical device or item of equipment (see Tēzaurs, 
available here). In English, in contrast, ‘apparatus’ means ‘the tools or other 
pieces of equipment that are needed for a particular activity or task’ (Oxford 
Learner’s Dictionaries, available here). Other sources, however, suggest that it 
should instead be understood as a set of instruments or pieces of equipment: in the 
Cambridge Dictionary, for example, ‘apparatus’ is understood as ‘a set of 
equipment or tools or a machine that is used for a particular purpose’ (see here). In 
French, appareil is understood as a set of technical elements organised in a more 
complete set than an instrument and having a function (‘ensemble d’éléments 
techniques organisés en un ensemble plus abouti qu’un outil et qui possède une 
fonction’) (Dictionnaire français; the definition is available here). In German, 
Apparate are understood as devices that perform particular functions (Gerät, das 
bestimmte Funktionen erfüllt). The definition is available here. 
The Latvian word instruments is different. It means a tool, a means (of performing 
an activity or task or of achieving something, normally in a person’s interest) 
(Tēzaurs, available here). In English, ‘instrument’ means ‘the tools or other pieces 
of equipment that are needed for a particular activity or task’ (Oxford Learner’s 
Dictionaries, available here). In French, instrument means a tool for performing 
BIOR 
 
9 
an operation or activity (‘outil permettant d’effectuer une opération, un travail’) 
(Dictionnaire français; the definition is available here). In German, Instrumente is 
understood to mean tools, instruments produced for scientific purposes (‘Zu 
wissenschaftlichen Zwecken hergestelltes Gerät, Werkzeug’). The definition is 
available here. 
The term ‘instrument’ can therefore be interpreted in two ways: it can be 
interpreted narrowly, as the State Tax Authority did in the present case when it 
stated that the fish tags (or markers) imported by the applicant at first instance are 
not used for the specific activities normally performed using instruments; 
alternatively, the term can be interpreted broadly to include tools and means 
which can be used to perform a specific activity or task (here, to research the 
subsequent fish population). 
11 It should also be borne in mind that the expression ‘scientific instrument or 
apparatus’ is not defined in detail in Regulation No 1186/2009. The Court of 
Justice has stated that the regulations which previously governed that field 
likewise did not indicate how the terms ‘instrument’ or ‘apparatus’ should be 
interpreted (judgment of 26 January 1984, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität 
München, 45/83, EU:C:1984:31, paragraph 8 of the grounds). 
In its judgment in Case 300/82, the Court of Justice interpreted Article 60 of 
Regulation No 918/83 (repealed on the entry into force of Regulation 
No 1186/2009), which governed relief from import duties on imports of biological 
or chemical substances intended for research and laboratory animals (Article 53 of 
Regulation No 1186/2009, which is currently in force, contains a similar 
provision). As a result, the Court has held that, in relation to Regulation 
No 1186/2009, it is possible to speak of two categories of relief: in one category, 
the relief depends on both the nature of the imported goods and on the importer; in 
the other category, the relief depends on the use by the recipient of the imported 
goods and not on the identity of the importer. 
It is not clear from a combined examination of point (a) of Article 46 and 
Articles 44 and 45 of Regulation No 1186/2009 whether it is possible to speak of 
two categories of relief in the present case also, and whether the second category 
of relief (that is to say, relief depending on the use to which the recipient puts the 
imported goods) may be applied to the goods imported by the applicant at first 
instance. 
12 In the light of the foregoing, it is uncertain whether the EU legislation must 
be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘scientific instrument or apparatus’ 
in point (a) of Article 46 of Regulation No 1186/2009 includes the fish tags (or 
markers) imported by the applicant at first instance. That is to say, whether objects 
which, by virtue of their particular technical structure and functioning, themselves 
serve directly as a means of scientific research can be regarded as a ‘scientific 
instrument or apparatus’ within the meaning of point (a) of Article 46 of 
Regulation No 1186/2009 and be classified under CN and TARIC code 3926 90 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 5. 2023 – CASE C-344/23 
 
10  
92 90, in which case the relief from import duties applies to them, or whether, on 
the contrary, the expression ‘scientific instrument or apparatus’ must not be 
interpreted broadly and the fish tags imported by the applicant at first instance 
must be classified under subheading 3926 90 97 90, with no relief from import 
duties, because they are not used for the specific activities normally performed 
using instruments. 
13 The Senate therefore considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court 
of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
Operative part 
In accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union […] [national procedural rules], the Senate 
Hereby orders 
That the following questions be referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1) Must the expression ‘scientific instrument or apparatus’ in point (a) of 
Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 
setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, be interpreted as 
meaning that it may include objects which, by virtue of their particular technical 
structure and functioning, themselves serve directly as a means of scientific 
research? 
2) Must 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, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1925 of 12 October 2017, be interpreted as meaning that subheading 
3926 90 92 90 of the combined nomenclature may include fish tags made of 
plastic? 
That the proceedings be stayed until the Court of Justice of the European Union 
has given its ruling. 
No appeal lies against this decision. 
[…] 
[signatures]