Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2025:906
Date: 2025-11-20
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation C-631/23 – 1 
Case C-631/23 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
18 October 2023 
Referring court: 
Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 October 2023 
Applicant: 
Servoprax GmbH 
Defendant: 
Hauptzollamt Duisburg 
 
[…] 
FINANZGERICHT DÜSSELDORF  
(Finance Court, Düsseldorf) 
ORDER 
In the case of 
Servoprax GmbH, […]  
Wesel, 
– applicant – 
[…] 
v 
Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Principal Customs Office, Duisburg) […] 
– defendant – 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-631/23 
 
2  
in the matter of    customs duties 
the 4th Chamber […] 
[…] 
ordered as follows on 4 October 2023: 
The proceedings are stayed. 
The following questions are to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (‘the Court’) for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of 
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: 
1. Is the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 (OJ EU L 256/1), in the 
version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 
6 October 2016 (OJ EU L 294/1), in the version of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1925 of 12 October 2017 (OJ EU L 
282/1), as well as in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2018/1602 of 11 October 2018 (OJ EU L 273/1), to be interpreted as 
meaning that tourniquets, of the type described more precisely in the Order, 
are to be classified under subheading 9018 90 84 of the Combined 
Nomenclature? 
2. If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: Is the 
second sentence of Article 252 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules 
concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code valid? 
[…] 
Grounds 
I. 
1 The applicant trades in medical products. In 13 cases during the period from 
22 August 2017 to 9 December 2019, it declared tourniquets imported from the 
People’s Republic of China to the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) under 
subheading 6307 90 98 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN). In response to its 
request of 11 March 2016, the Hauptzollamt Hanover issued it with a binding 
tariff information dated 15 April 2016. In doing so, the Hauptzollamt Hannover 
had classified the tourniquets under subheading 6307 90 98 CN, instead of under 
subheading 9018 90 84, as indicated by the applicant in its request. 
2 The tourniquets were single-coloured bands made of an elastic textile-fibre fabric 
measuring approximately 38 cm in length, approximately 2.5 cm in width and 
SERVOPRAX 
 
3 
approximately 2.2 mm in thickness. At their ends there was a plastic cap and a 
plastic snap fastener consisting of a snap-in component at the other end of the 
band. In addition, they featured a receiving component that could be freely guided 
over the band, with a fixing mechanism for clamping the section of band that 
could be guided through. The tourniquets were intended to be placed around the 
arm of a patient. They served to produce a vascular congestion in a vein. 
3 Based on the applicant’s customs declarations, the defendant Hauptzollamt 
imposed customs duties on the applicant at a duty rate of 6.3%. On 8 July 2020, 
the applicant applied for reimbursement of the duty collected, in the amount of 
EUR 8,703.71. It claimed that the tourniquets were to be classified under 
subheading 9018 90 84 CN. In that respect, it referred to legal proceedings 
pending before the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf, 
Germany) – case reference 4 K 943/19 Z – in which it also sought the 
reimbursement of customs duties on the grounds of the classification assigned to 
the tourniquets vis-à-vis the customs declarations that it had submitted up until 
September 2015. In those legal proceedings, the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf 
(Finance Court, Düsseldorf) classified the tourniquets under subheading 9018 90 
84 CN and, by judgment of 11 March 2022, ordered the defendant Hauptzollamt 
to reimburse the customs duties to the applicant. 
4 In view of the fact that the defendant Hauptzollamt had not, despite the applicant’s 
reminder, issued a decision on the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the 
customs duties of 8 July 2020, the applicant lodged an objection and ultimately 
commenced an action. 
5 In its application, the applicant submits that: The tourniquets should be classified 
under subheading 9018 90 84 CN because, according to the applicant, they are 
used by doctors for the purposes of making a diagnosis. In so far as the 
Commission had excluded tourniquets from subheading 9018 90 84 CN in its 
Explanatory Notes to the CN of 31 October 2017 (OJ EU C 370/2), that ran 
contrary to the wording of heading 9018 CN. 
6 According to the applicant, the binding tariff information issued to it on 15 April 
2016 does not preclude classification of the tourniquets under subheading 9018 90 
84 CN. It was true that – pursuant to the second sentence of Article 252 of 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (UCC-DR) of 28 July 2015 
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union 
Customs Code (OJ EU L 343/1) – binding tariff information issued before 1 May 
2016 is, as of 1 May 2016, also binding on the holder of the decision. However, 
the applicant maintains that the Commission lacked the power to adopt such far-
reaching, retroactive and burdensome rules. After receiving the binding tariff 
information, the applicant decided not to contest it because – according to the 
applicant – it was not binding on the applicant by virtue of Article 12 of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code, ‘CC’) of 12 October 1992 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-631/23 
 
4  
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ EU L 302/1). The legitimate 
expectation stemming from that legal situation should be protected. 
7 The defendant Hauptzollamt is contesting the action on the grounds that: 
According to the binding tariff information issued to the applicant, the tourniquets 
should be classified under subheading 6307 90 98 CN. That was already 
confirmed by the Commission’s Explanatory Notes to the CN of 31 October 2017 
(OJ EU C 370/2). 
II. 
8 The following provisions of the Abgabenordnung (Fiscal Code of Germany, ‘the 
AO’) in the version promulgated on 1 October 2002 (Bundesgesetzblatt 2002 Part 
I, page 3866; 2003 Part I, page 61) are relevant for the decision on the second 
question referred for a preliminary ruling: 
Paragraph 347 Permissibility of objections 
(1) Objection to administrative acts 
1. in fiscal matters to which this Code applies, […] shall be permissible as a 
means of legal remedy. 
Paragraph 355 Period for objection 
Objection pursuant to section 347(1), first sentence, shall be lodged within one 
month of notice of the administrative act. […] 
III. 
9 9. The Chamber stays the pending action […] and refers the questions set out 
in the operative part of the present Order to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (‘the Court’) for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of 
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). 
The decision on the action depends on whether the tourniquets are to be classified 
under subheading 9018 90 84 CN. If the tourniquets are to be classified under 
heading 9018 90 84 CN and not under subheading 6307 90 98 CN, the decision on 
the action depends on whether the second sentence of Article 252 of the UCC-DR 
is valid. 
10 The Chamber has doubts as to whether the tourniquets are to be classified under 
subheading 6307 90 98 CN. In the case at issue, the CN is to be applied in the 
version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 
2016 (OJ EU L 294/1) for the year 2017; in the version of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1925 of 12 October 2017 (OJ EU L 282/1) 
for the year 2018; and in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2018/1602 of 11 October 2018 (OJ EU L 273/1) for the year 2019. 
SERVOPRAX 
 
5 
11 The decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in 
general to be found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in 
the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and of the section or chapter notes 
(CJEU, judgments of 12 July 2012, C-291/11, EU:C:2012:459, paragraph 30; of 
28 October 2021, C-197/20 and C-216/20, EU:C:2021:892, paragraph 31). In spite 
of the fact that they lack binding force, the World Customs Organisation’s 
Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System (‘HS’) and the Commission’s 
Explanatory Notes to the CN may be regarded as useful aids to the interpretation 
of the HS and CN, in so far as their content is consistent with the provisions which 
they interpret (CJEU, judgment of 9 February 2023, C-788/21, EU:C:2023:86, 
paragraph 37). 
12 The intended use of a product may also constitute an objective criterion for 
classification if it is inherent to the product, and that inherent character must be 
capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics 
and properties (CJEU, judgments of 22 September 2016, C-91/15, 
EU:C:2016:716, paragraph 56; of 28 October 2021, C-197/20 and C-216/20, 
EU:C:2021:892, paragraph 31). 
13 Those principles indicate that the tourniquets should not be classified under 
subheading 6307 90 98 CN. Heading 6307 CN covers other made-up articles in 
general. By contrast, heading 9018 CN appears to be a more precise match since, 
inter alia, instruments and appliances used in medical sciences are to be classified 
to that heading (first sentence of point 3(a) of the General rules for the 
interpretation of the combined nomenclature). The tourniquets at issue are to be 
used solely by medical personnel for medical purposes. That is also the intended 
purpose of the tourniquets. That is not disputed by the parties to the present case. 
Moreover, it is also apparent from the description of the goods set out in the 
binding tariff information issued to the applicant on 15 April 2016. The 
tourniquets are therefore likely to fulfil the conditions for classification under 
heading 9018 CN (CJEU, judgment of 4 March 2015 C-547/13, EU:C:2015:139, 
paragraph 51 et seq.). 
14 Classification of the tourniquets to heading 9018 CN is probably not precluded by 
the Commission’s Explanatory Notes to the CN of 31 October 2017 (OJ EU C 
370/2) and 29 March 2019 (OJ C 119/388). While it is true that, in those 
Explanatory Notes, the Commission adopted the view that so-called ‘tourniquets’, 
which are comparable to the tourniquets at issue, were not to be classified under 
subheading 9018 90 84 CN, that does not appear to be consistent, however, with 
the wording of heading 9018 CN and the Explanatory Notes (HS) relating to that 
heading. According to the first paragraph of those Explanatory Notes, heading 
9018 HS covers a particularly large number of instruments and appliances made 
from any material, and characterised essentially by the fact that, in almost all 
cases, they normally require, inter alia, handling by doctors, midwives and so 
forth in their professional practice for the purposes of making a diagnosis. That is 
undoubtedly the case with regard to the tourniquets at issue. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-631/23 
 
6  
15 In the Chamber’s view, the tourniquets are also unlikely to be comparable to 
goods which are actually only tools or cutlery products and which are described in 
the fourth paragraph of the Explanatory Notes (HS) to heading 9018. According to 
those Explanatory Notes, to which the Commission referred in support of its 
Explanatory Notes of 31 October 2017 and 29 March 2019, such tools or cutlery 
products are covered by heading 9018 only if their intended use for medical and 
surgical purposes is clearly identifiable. In the opinion of the Chamber, 
tourniquets cannot be regarded as goods for general use, such as tools or cutlery. 
On the contrary, it should be clear from the elastic material, the snap fastener, the 
snap-in component and the fixing mechanism that the tourniquets were intended 
to be placed around the arm of a patient in order to create a vascular congestion in 
a vein in the arm. Moreover, that is not disputed by the parties to the case. 
16 In the event, therefore, that the tourniquets are to be classified under heading 9018 
90 84 CN, it is necessary to clarify whether the second sentence of Article 252 of 
the UCC-DR is valid. 
17 The binding tariff information of 15 April 2016 was issued to the applicant in 
accordance with the then still-in-effect Article 12(1) of the Customs Code. The 
Customs Code was repealed pursuant to Article 286(2) of Regulation (EU) 
No 952/2013 (Union Customs Code, ‘UCC’) of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ EU L 
269/1) with effect only as of 1 May 2016 (Article 288(2) of the UCC). According 
to the first subparagraph of Article 12(2) of the CC, binding tariff information was 
to be binding only on the customs authorities vis-à-vis the respective beneficiary. 
From the applicant’s point of view, it was thus immaterial, up until 30 April 2016, 
whether the binding tariff information issued to it on 15 April 2016, by which the 
tourniquets were classified under subheading 6307 90 98 CN, was correct. The 
applicant was not required to rely on that information. However, according to the 
second sentence of Article 252 of the UCC-DR, binding tariff information issued 
before 1 May 2016 is now also binding not only on the customs authorities but 
also on the holder. 
18 The Chamber has doubts as to the validity of that Commission rule, which relates 
to binding tariff information issued under the then still-in-effect Article 12(1) of 
the Customs Code. 
19 However, it is unlikely that the applicant can rely on the principle of protection of 
legitimate expectations in the present case. Specifically, the applicant could still 
have challenged the binding tariff information of 15 April 2016, even after 1 May 
2016, by lodging an objection as an out-of-court remedy (Article 44(2)(a) of the 
UCC; point (1) of the first sentence of Paragraph 347(1) AO and first sentence of 
Paragraph 355(1) AO). Thus, in view of the provision laid down in the second 
sentence of Article 252 of the UCC-DR, it could not legitimately expect that the 
binding tariff information issued to it would remain non-binding for it even after 
30 April 2016 (see, to that effect, CJEU, judgment of 3 June 2021, C-39/20, 
EU:C:2021:435, paragraph 48). 
SERVOPRAX 
 
7 
20 However, the Chamber doubts whether the Commission had a mandate to adopt 
the second sentence of Article 252 of the UCC-DR. According to the second 
subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU, a legislative act delegating to the 
Commission a power to adopt a non-legislative act of general application to 
supplement or amend certain non-essential elements must explicitly define the 
objectives, content, scope and duration of that delegation of power. The purpose 
of granting a delegated power can therefore serve only to achieve the adoption of 
rules coming within the regulatory framework as defined by the basic legislative 
act (CJEU, judgment of 18 March 2014, C-427/12, EU:C:2014:170, 
paragraph 38). The definition of the power conferred must, in particular, be 
sufficiently precise, in that it must indicate clearly the limits of the power and 
must enable the Commission’s use of the power to be reviewed by reference to 
objective criteria fixed by the EU legislature (CJEU, judgment of 26 July 2017, 
C-696/15 P, EU:C:2017:595, paragraph 49). 
21 The Chamber is unable to identify a mandate that the Commission could have 
relied upon for the purposes of adopting the second sentence of Article 252 of the 
UCC-DR. Article 36 of the UCC does not contain any provision conferring on the 
Commission the power to provide, by way of derogation from Article 12(2) of the 
Customs Code, that binding tariff information issued before 1 May 2016 is 
nevertheless also to be binding on the holder as of 1 May 2016. 
[…]