Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:708
Date: 2018-09-13
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 13 September 2018 Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Camera able to record in its volatile memory images that are then deleted when the camera is switched off or new images are captured — Classification under subheading 8525 80 30 of the Combined Nomenclature — Application by analogy of Regulation No 113/2014 — Classification of ‘high speed cameras’ under subheading 8525 80 19 of the Combined Nomenclature — Invalidity of the regulation (Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, subheadings 8525 80 19 and 8525 80 30; Commission Regulation No 113/2014) Subheading 8525 80 30 of the Combined Nomenclature set out 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, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as covering a camera, such as the camera at issue in the main proceedings, that is capable of capturing a large number of photographic images per second and of storing them in its volatile internal memory — images that are deleted from that memory when the camera is switched off — and that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it is applicable by analogy to goods that have the characteristics of that camera, is invalid. It follows that the decisive feature that distinguishes digital cameras under CN subheading 8525 80 30 from television cameras under CN subheading 8525 80 19 is the former’s capability of recording still images onto an internal memory or a storage device. In the light of the fact that the length of time for which, inter alia, images can be stored in that internal memory or in that storage device is not specifically stated, the recording of images by the camera in question onto a volatile internal memory must therefore be regarded as a recording within the meaning of those Explanatory Notes, with no relevance attaching to the fact that the recorded images are deleted when the device is switched off or new images are captured. It is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the application by analogy of a classification regulation, such as Implementing Regulation No 113/2014, to goods similar to those covered by that regulation facilitates a coherent interpretation of the CN and the equal treatment of traders (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 July 2006, Anagram International, C‑14/05, EU:C:2006:465, paragraph 32). The devices described in Implementing Regulation No 113/2014 have similar objective characteristics and properties to the camera in question in the main proceedings. Those devices, like the camera in question, are capable of capturing a large number of digital photographs per second, are equipped with a CMOS sensor, have a volatile internal memory from which the images are lost as soon as the device is switched off, and can be used for the study of ultra-high speed phenomena. It follows that Implementing Regulation No 113/2014 is applicable by analogy to the camera in question in the main proceedings and, as a result, the validity of that regulation must be examined. Given that Implementing Regulation No 113/2014 excludes, contrary to what is stated in CN subheading 8525 80 30, devices which temporarily record images in volatile memory from that subheading and therefore classifies ‘high speed cameras’ under CN subheading 8525 80 19, that implementing regulation is incompatible with the scope of CN subheading 8525 80 30. (see paras 30, 33, 45-47, 50, 53, operative part)