Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:995
Date: 2024-11-28
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Translation C-129/23 – 1 
Case C-129/23 
Request for a preliminary ruling  
Date lodged: 
3 March 2023 
Referring court: 
Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
19 January 2023 
Applicant: 
BG Technik cs, a.s. 
Defendant: 
Generální ředitelství cel 
  
[…] [national proceedings] 
O R D E R   
Nejvyšší správní soud (the Supreme Administrative Court) has ruled […] in the 
case of the applicant: BG Technik cs, a.s., […] Prague 5, […] against the 
defendant: Generální ředitelství cel, […] Prague 4, against the decision of the 
Defendant of 19 April 2017, […] in proceedings concerning the Defendant’s 
appeal against the judgment of the Městský soud v Praze (City Court, Prague) of 
9 March 2020, […] 
A s  f o l l o w s :  
I. The following question is hereby submitted to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union: 
1. Can an electric mobility vehicle whose maximum speed exceeds 
10 km/hr, and which is equipped with a separate adjustable 
steering column, be classified under heading 8713 of the Combined 
Nomenclature, despite the Explanatory Notes to the Combined 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 1. 2023 – CASE C-129/23 
 
2  
Nomenclature of 6 May 2011 (2011/C 137/01) and 4 March 2015 
(2015/C 076/01)? 
2. Does Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 apply – aside from 
the vehicles directly described therein – also to an electric mobility 
vehicle with the following characteristics: 
- Four wheels (the rear pair of wheels are anti-tip); 
- An adjustable and rotating seat with armrests, 
- A horizontal platform between the front and rear sections of 
the mobility vehicle; 
- An 800 W electric motor, enabling the attainment of a speed 
of up to 16 km/hr and a range of up to 45 km, 
- An electromagnetic brake on the rear wheels; 
- Closed handlebars mounted on a separate steering column 
that can be folded down and equipped with levers for speed 
selection? 
II. […] [national proceedings] 
G r o u n d s :  
[1] The dispute in this case concerns the tariff classification of an electric 
mobility vehicle – either under heading 8703 10 18 or under heading 8713 10 00 
of the Combined Nomenclature. The Court of Justice has repeatedly concerned 
itself with the classification of these mobility vehicles (electric mobility scooters) 
and with the interpretation of the Explanatory Notes concerning the headings; 
however, even following its decisions, the administrative and judicial practice 
remain inconsistent. 
1. Subject of the proceedings  
[2] In May 2016, the Celní úřad pro hlavní město Prahu (Customs Authority for 
the City of Prague) assessed the corporation BG TECHNIK cs with additional 
customs on the goods ‘electric mobility vehicle SELVO 4800’ for the period from 
July 2013 to September 2015’. In its customs declaration, the company had 
declared the goods as a carriage for disabled persons, whether or not motorised 
or otherwise mechanically propelled; other, as falling under heading 8713 90 00 
of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) with a customs rate of 0%. The customs 
authority, however, assessed the goods as a vehicle specially designed for 
travelling on snow; golf cars and similar vehicles; other, falling under heading 
8703 10 18 of the CN, with a customs rate of 10%. The company appealed the 
BG TECHNIK 
 
3 
decision of the customs authority before the Generální ředitelství cel (General 
Customs Directorate) but was unsuccessful. 
[3] The company challenged the decision concerning the appeal by an 
application before the City Court, Prague, which granted the application, annulled 
the contested decision and referred the case back for further proceedings. 
According to the City Court, the contested question as to whether the mobility 
vehicle falls under heading No 8713 of the CN or heading No 8703 of the CN had 
been resolved by the Supreme Administrative Court in relation to another period 
(judgment in BG TECHNIK cs of 27 June 2018 […]). Consequently, the City 
Court assessed the matter identically, stating that the contested mobility vehicle is 
a carriage for disabled persons under heading 8713 of the CN, as it has properties 
characteristic of a carriage for disabled persons. If a carriage does not comply with 
some of the characteristics in the Explanatory Notes to the CN, or if it has a 
separate steering column, this does not alter its function – a form of assistance for 
persons with a limited ability to walk (judgment of the Court of Justice in Invamed 
Group, C-198/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:362). Commission Regulation No 718/2009, 
excluding mobility vehicles with a separate steering column from heading 8713 of 
the CN, is not applicable in this case, as the contested mobility vehicle is intended 
for disabled persons. 
[4] The General Customs Directorate appealed the judgment of the City Court 
on a point of law, with an appeal lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court 
(in those proceedings, consequently, it is the complainant). It claimed that the City 
Court had failed to consider that mobility vehicles with a separate steering column 
are excluded from heading 8713 of the CN. That arises, above all, from the notes 
on the CN, from Commission Regulation No 718/2009, and from the case-law of 
the Court of Justice (judgment in Lecson Elektromobile GmbH, C-12/10, 
ECLI:EU:C:2010:823), and also from the opinions of the Customs Code 
Committee. Furthermore, the mobility vehicle does not have features to alleviate 
disability. According to the complainant, the classification of the mobility vehicle 
under heading 8713 of the CN will have an adverse impact on the EU internal 
market and on the national budget. The complainant proposes that the Supreme 
Administrative Court refer a question to the CJEU. 
[5] In its statement in response to the appeal, the company stated that the 
decisive criteria for the classification of goods are solely the objective 
characteristics and properties given in CN numbers and headings; only those are 
binding. On the other hand, the Explanatory Notes to the CN are not binding: they 
aid only in the interpretation of individual tariff headings, but cannot alter the 
contents of such a heading. 
[6] The appearance of the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle whose tariff 
classification is at issue in this case is as follows: 1 
 
1 https://www.selvo.cz/elektricke-voziky-a-skutry/seniorska-ctyrkolka-selvo-4800/ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 1. 2023 – CASE C-129/23 
 
4  
 
[7] The mobility vehicle is a four-wheel vehicle with an electric 800 W motor; it 
is recharged from a regular 230 V socket. The dimensions of the mobility vehicle 
are 122/60/125 cm (height – width – length), its weight is 108 kg, and the 
maximum load is 130 kg. Its maximum driving range is 45 km, and maximum 
achievable speed is 16 km/h. The mobility vehicle has one seat, which is 
adjustable and rotating and fitted with armrests. It is fitted with a separate steering 
column and an automatic electro-magnetic brake on the rear wheels. It is 
controlled with the use of handlebars of an oval, closed shape, mounted on the 
steering column. Speed can be selected with levers on the handlebars; steering and 
the speed of the mobility vehicle can be controlled with one hand. The front and 
the rear parts of the mobility vehicle are linked with a horizontal platform on 
which the user may rest his feet. Furthermore, the mobility vehicle is equipped 
with two sets of tyres, rear-view mirrors, and front and rear lights and directional 
lights. 
2. Applicable European Union legislation  
[8] Headings 8703 10 18 and 8713 10 00 of the Combined Nomenclature [i.e., 
Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, on the tariff and statistical 
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff] were described as follows in 
Commission implementing regulations between 2013 and 2015: 2 
8703: Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport 
of persons, including station wagons and racing cars 
8703 10: Vehicles specially designed for travelling on snow; golf cars and 
similar vehicles 
 
2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012, No 1001/2013, and No 1101/2014. 
BG TECHNIK 
 
5 
8703 10 18: Other 
8713: Carriages for disabled persons, whether or not motorised or otherwise 
mechanically propelled 
8713 90 00: Other 
[9] According to the introductory provisions of the Implementing Regulations, 
the text of the headings and of the respective notes on the classes and chapters and 
the following provisions are determinative for the classification of the goods, 
unless the text of the headings or notes stipulates otherwise. The classification of 
goods, however, is also performed in line with the Explanatory Notes to the CN. 3 
At the decisive time, the notes to heading 8713 read as follows: 
Motorised vehicles specifically designed for disabled persons are distinguishable 
from vehicles under heading 8703, mainly because they have: 
- a maximum speed of 10 km per hour, i.e., a fast-walking pace,  
- a maximum width of 80 cm,  
- two sets of wheels touching the ground,  
- special features to alleviate the disability (for example, footrests for 
stabilising the legs). 
Such vehicles may have: 
- an additional set of wheels (anti-tips), 
- steering and other controls (for example, a joystick) that are easy to 
manipulate; such controls are usually attached to one of the armrests; they 
are never in the form of a separate, adjustable steering column. 
This subheading includes electrically driven vehicles similar to wheelchairs which 
are only for the transport of disabled people. They can have the following 
appearance: 
 
3 Explanatory Notes of 6 May 2011 and of 4 March 2015 published under No. 2011/C 137/01 and 
No. 2015/C 076/01. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 1. 2023 – CASE C-129/23 
 
6  
 
However, motor-driven scooters (mobility scooters) fitted with a separate, 
adjustable steering column are excluded from this subheading. They can have the 
following appearance and are classified under heading 8703: 
 
[10] At the time of the import in the present case, Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 718/2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined 
Nomenclature was in force. That regulation classified two types of vehicles 
powered with an electric motor under heading 8703 of the CN. Both had a 
horizontal platform linking the front and rear parts, anti-tip wheels at the rear, and 
a separate steering column that can be folded down. The first had four wheels and 
had an adjustable seat without armrests and grips. The other had three wheels and 
had an adjustable seat with armrests and grips. According to the Commission, 
BG TECHNIK 
 
7 
neither vehicle was specially designed to carry disabled persons nor had special 
features to alleviate the disability. 
3. Analysis of the question  
[11] In this case, the Supreme Administrative Court addresses the question of 
whether the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle may fall under heading 8713 despite 
exceeding the maximum speed given in the Explanatory Notes and having a 
separate steering column. Should either of these features eliminate it from heading 
8713, it would not be necessary to examine further whether the mobility vehicle 
has any special features to alleviate a disability. 
[12] Certainly, the task of the Court of Justice is not to directly classify contested 
goods under a tariff: on the contrary, this has to be done by a national court 
(judgment in Hydro Energo, C-340/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:488, paragraph 33 and 
the case-law cited therein). Nevertheless, in considering the tariff classification of 
the mobility vehicle, the Supreme Administrative Court cannot manage without 
further interpretative guidance, which can be given to it only by the Court of 
Justice (judgment in Consorzio Italian Management, C-561/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:291, paragraph 37). 
[13] The case-law of the Court of Justice on the contested question has thus far 
not resulted in customs authorities and administrative courts in Member States 
adopting consistent practice. Hence, the Supreme Administrative Court deems it 
necessary to obtain certainty:  
- as to the correct interpretation of the judgments rendered, particularly in two 
regards (Chapter 3.4): 
• practical difficulties caused by the term non-marginal limit on their 
ability to walk used by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Invamed; 
• it remains unclear to what extent the Explanatory Notes may be 
employed in the interpretation of heading 8713; 
- as to the impact of Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 on the tariff 
classification of the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle (Chapter 3.5). 
3.1 Basic rules for the tariff classification of goods  
[14] (Explanatory Notes) The case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the 
relation of the Combined Nomenclature and the Explanatory Notes thereto is 
long-standing and stable. According to that case law, Explanatory Notes are an 
important aid to interpretation, but are not legally binding. 4 The Court takes a 
 
4 E.g., judgments in Cases LTM, C-201/96, ECLI:EU:C:1997:523, paragraph 21; Glob-Sped, 
C-328/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:601, paragraph 26; Bartosch Airport Supply Services, C-772/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:141, paragraph 23; or PRODEX, C-72/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:312, 
paragraph 29. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 1. 2023 – CASE C-129/23 
 
8  
similar view of the opinions of the Customs Code Commission (judgment in 
Unomedical, C-152/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:402, paragraph 41). In practice, the 
Court of Justice often takes into account the Explanatory Notes – provided they 
are consistent with the provisions of the Combined Nomenclature and do not alter 
their scope or meaning. 5 If they are inconsistent, the Court of Justice concludes 
that they cannot be taken into account. 6 
[15] (Objective characteristics and purpose of a product) The purpose of a 
product may also be of relevance in the tariff classification of a product. This is, 
however, only regarded if a product cannot be classified purely on the basis of its 
objective characteristics and properties. At the same time, the purpose must be 
inherent to the goods being classified. The inherent nature must be assessed on the 
basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties. 7 The intended use, 
as determined by the manufacturer, may also be considered in the tariff 
classification of goods. 8 
[16] (Classification regulation) When the classification of a particular product 
in the Combined Nomenclature is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a 
matter of dispute, a classification regulation is adopted by the Commission. Such a 
regulation is of general application in so far as it does not apply to an individual 
trader but, in general, to products identical to the one thus classified (judgment in 
Kamino, C-376/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:105, paragraph 63). It will apply even to 
products which are (only) similar as it facilitates a coherent interpretation of the 
Combined Nomenclature and the equal treatment of importers (judgment in 
Krings, C-130/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:122, paragraph 35). 
3.2 Judgments in Lecson and Invamed 
[17] The Court of Justice has addressed the relationship of headings 8703 and 
8713 of the Combined Nomenclature twice, and each time the case concerned the 
tariff classification of electric mobility vehicles. 
 
5 E.g., judgments in Cases JVC France, C-312/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:324, paragraph 34, or Duval, 
C-44/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:783, paragraph 24. 
6 E.g., judgments in Cases Develop Dr. Eisbein, C-35/93, ECLI:EU:C:1994:252, paragraphs 19 
and 20; Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft, C-229/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:239, 
paragraph 31; British Sky Broadcasting Group, C-288/09, and C-289/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:248; 
Digitalnet, C-320/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 45; or Profit [Europe], C-397/17, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:564, paragraphs 47, 49, and 51. 
7 E.g., judgments in Cases Thyssen Haniel Logistic, C-459/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:160, 
paragraph 13; or Bartosch Airport Supply Services, C-772/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:141, 
paragraph 24. 
8 E.g., judgments in Cases Oliver Medical, C-547/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:139, paragraphs 52 and 
72; Onlineshop, C-268/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:353, paragraph 29; or DHL Logistics (Slovakia), 
C-810/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:336, paragraph 26. 
BG TECHNIK 
 
9 
[18] In Case Lecson (paragraph [4] above) the referring court asked under what 
heading of the CN an electric mobility scooter should be classified. In its 
response, the Court of Justice emphasised that all of the disputed electric mobility 
scooters have a separate, adjustable steering column. The footrest with which they 
are equipped does serve for the driver to place his feet, but it does not stabilise the 
leg. Lastly, the speed that the electric mobility scooters can reach exceeds 10 km/h 
(Lecson, paragraphs 21-23). Hence, according to the Court of Justice, these are 
means of transport of persons falling under heading 8703 of the CN, and not 
vehicles for disabled persons for the purposes of heading 8713 of the CN (Lecson, 
paragraph 24). The fact that those electric mobility scooters may be used, where 
appropriate, by disabled persons or even may be adapted for use by disabled 
persons does not affect the tariff classification of such vehicles (Lecson, 
paragraph 25). 
[19] That judgment clearly states that electric mobility scooters should be 
classified under heading 8703 of the CN. 
[20] Difficulties with the tariff classification of electric mobility vehicles (newly 
designated as mobility scooters) again arose in the Invamed case (paragraph [3] 
above). This time, the referring court did not ask directly about the tariff 
classification, but was interested to know: 
- whether a vehicle must be intended solely for disabled persons in order 
to be classified under heading 8713 of the CN; 
- whether the fact that a vehicle may be used by non-disabled persons is 
relevant to its tariff classification; 
- what the term “disabled persons” means; 
- whether the Explanatory Notes to the CN (paragraph [9] above) are 
capable of amending the scope of heading 8713 of the CN. 
[21] The Court of Justice replied that the words ‘for disabled persons’ mean that 
the scooter is designed solely for disabled person. The fact that a vehicle may be 
used by non-disabled persons is irrelevant to its tariff classification (Invamed, 
paragraph 27). The words ‘disabled persons’ applies to persons affected by a limit 
on their ability to walk and that limit is non-marginal (Invamed, paragraph 34). As 
to the relationship between the Explanatory Notes and the wording of heading 
8713 of the CN, the Court of Justice only added (generally) that the Explanatory 
Notes to the CN are not capable of amending the scope of the tariff headings of 
the CN (Invamed, paragraph 27). It is for the referring court to determine whether 
the vehicle at issue is intended, with regard to its characteristics and objective 
properties, to be used specifically by disabled persons, in which case such use 
must be classified as ‘the main or logical use’ of that type of vehicle (Invamed, 
paragraph 23). 
3.3 National decision in the Invamed Case 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 1. 2023 – CASE C-129/23 
 
10  
[22] In the end, the UK First-tier tribunal which made the preliminary reference 
in Invamed granted the importer’s application. The customs authority appealed, 
and the Upper Tribunal granted the appeal. The importer filed another appeal to 
the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, which granted its appeal, upholding the 
original decision of the First-tier tribunal, according to which an electric mobility 
vehicle is to be classified under heading 8713 of the CN as a vehicle for disabled 
persons (Invamed vs HMRC of 25 February 2020). 
[23] The Court of Appeal accepted the interpretation of the First-tier Tribunal, 
which had interpreted the relationship of the judgments in Lecson and Invamed 
such that the judgment in Lecson may continue to be used only to the extent 
permitted by the judgment in Invamed. Healthy persons may use the mobility 
vehicle, but that is not relevant if the mobility vehicle was not made for the 
purpose of carrying healthy people and if, on the contrary, its main and logical use 
is to carry persons who are not healthy. Invamed emphasised that the term of 
disability is broad, meaning that the mobility vehicles may serve people who are 
disabled to a greater but also a lesser degree, for whom a classic wheelchair is not 
the only option. The mobility vehicle is slow, is to be used in shops and along 
pavements where there is little space and where a small turning radius is needed. 
The mobility vehicle has certain properties that make it fit for use by persons who 
do not have a limit on their ability to walk which is non-marginal. The fact that it 
can potentially be used by persons without such a limit changes nothing in its 
tariff classification. The mobility vehicle does not bring any advantages to healthy 
persons: its special properties do not make their movement in space easier; on the 
contrary, it makes them clumsier than if they simply walked. 
[24] The Court of Appeal summarised that in the Invamed Case, the Court of 
Justice either changed its opinion of the intended use of the mobility vehicles or at 
least opened a way for national courts to classify the mobility vehicle under 
heading 8713 of the CN. The correct classification requires a determination 
whether the mobility vehicles were intended solely for disabled persons: the more 
the mobility vehicle design meets the needs of disabled persons rather than those 
who simply do not feel like walking (even if they could), the clearer it is that the 
mobility vehicle is intended for disabled persons. The mobility vehicle assessed in 
the Invamed case is not as specialised as an electric wheelchair intended for 
people with multiple disabilities, but that does not rule it out from the scope of 
heading 8713 of the CN. 
3.4 Interpretive difficulties arising from the judgment in Invamed 
[25] The reasoning of the UK Court of Appeal expressed correctly that the 
judgment in Invamed expanded the scope of heading 8713 of the CN in relation to 
the interpretation used in the judgment in Lecson. Nevertheless, even following 
the national UK decision, doubt remains as to the correct classification of SELVO 
4800-type mobility vehicles, as the judgment in Invamed: 
- interpreted the term ‘disabled persons’ relatively broadly; 
BG TECHNIK 
 
11 
- did not explicitly address the relationship between heading 8713 of the 
CN and the Explanatory Notes thereto. 
[26] The very text of heading 8713 of the CN (carriages for disabled persons) 
does not describe the objective properties and characteristics of the goods in a way 
that would in itself permit their reliable tariff classification. This CN heading is 
structured such that it essentially only sets the purpose of the product using the 
ambiguous legal term disabled persons. The Court of Justice interpreted that term, 
using in that interpretation an ambiguous legal term non-marginal limit on their 
ability to walk. 9 That way, it did determine that the term cannot be interpreted too 
narrowly (it is not a ‘handicap’ within the meaning of Article 21 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC; 
Invamed, paragraph 30), but it did not indicate how broadly it can be interpreted. 
[27] Useful limits on an extensively broad interpretation are set by the 
Explanatory Notes, by summarising the objective properties of carriages for 
disabled persons that are apparent at the time of their import. The Explanatory 
Notes describe the features that the carriages must have (speed and width not 
exceeding the maximum limit; two sets of wheels; special feature to alleviate the 
disability) and that they may have (an additional set of wheels; controls for easier 
handling). Lastly, the Explanatory Notes regulate a third category: features that 
they may not have. A separate, adjustable steering column is such a feature. 
[28] The Court of Justice did say generally that the Explanatory Notes cannot 
alter the interpretation of tariff headings, but in reality, paragraph 27 of the 
judgment in Invamed does not provide an answer to a specific question – whether 
the Explanatory Notes to heading 8713 of the CN alter the meaning of heading 
8713 of the CN or not. This allows for an interpretation according to which the 
Explanatory Notes in this case do not alter the scope of heading 8713 of the CN, 
and they must therefore be relied on. Specifically, that means that, even if a 
specific mobility vehicle had special features to alleviate a disability (it is for the 
national court to interpret this ambiguous term), it could not be classified under 
heading 8713 of the CN if it was, at the same time, equipped with a separate, 
adjustable steering column. 
[29] National courts deciding after the judgment in Invamed have been silently 
leaving the Explanatory Notes aside (in addition to the UK judgment described 
above, that is also true of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court in BG 
TECHNIK cs of 27 June 2018), considering electric mobility vehicles similar to 
the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle to be vehicles for disabled persons. In contrast, 
customs authorities in various Member States interpret the judgment in Invamed 
differently and continue to classify such mobility vehicles under heading 8703 of 
the CN. 
 
9 Limitation non marginale de la capacité de marcher. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 1. 2023 – CASE C-129/23 
 
12  
[30] The Supreme Administrative Court deems it useful to draw attention to this 
widespread administrative practice in Member States, about which it obtained 
information from local customs authorities. In Belgium, mobility vehicles similar 
to the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle have always been classified under 8703 of 
the CN. According to Belgian authorities, the judgment in Invamed could not have 
changed that classification. Also, Austrian customs authorities believe that the 
Invamed judgment further strengthened the grounds for classifying such vehicles 
under heading 8703 of the CN. Thirdly, German customs authorities are of the 
same opinion. The ‘non-marginal’ limit in the ability to walk ascribed to ‘disabled 
persons’ by the judgment in Invamed cannot be interpreted as mere reduced 
mobility (typically due to age). Vehicles designed to facilitate transport for 
persons with reduced mobility therefore are not specially designed for disabled 
persons within the meaning of heading 8713 of the CN. 
[31] The database of binding tariff information (BTI Consultation) can indicate 
the practice of customs authorities in recent years. Vehicles similar to the SELVO 
4800 mobility vehicle have been classified under heading 8703 of the CN by the 
customs authorities of France (BTI 1, applicable from 21 February 2020), Spain 
(BTI 2, applicable from 20 May 2021), and Germany (BTI 3, applicable from 
10 January 2022). Conversely, all cases in which the goods were classified under 
heading 8713 of the CN concern ‘classic’ wheelchairs (five examples of binding 
tariff information in Germany between 2020 and 2021, BTI 4-8). 
[32] It must be added that only binding information for the import of the SELVO 
4800 mobility vehicle from before 6 September 2021 is relevant to the 
argumentation in this case. At that point, Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 
came into force, placing SELVO 4800-type mobility vehicles under heading 8703 
of the CN. From that date, there can be no dispute as to the correct tariff 
classification. 
3.5 Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 
[33] In the Invamed Case, the Court of Justice was unable to consider the 
applicability of Regulation No 718/2009, applicable from 27 August 2009, 
because the contested imports to the United Kingdom took place between 2004 
and 2007. The imports concerned in this case, however, took place between 2013 
and 2015, hence, while Regulation No 718/2009 was in force. Consequently, the 
impact of that regulation on the tariff classification of the SELVO 4800 mobility 
vehicle must be considered. 
[34] The Supreme Administrative Court perceives a similarity between the 
SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle and two vehicles described in Regulation 
No 718/2009 (the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle combines the features of the two 
vehicles): the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle has four wheels; an adjustable seat 
with armrests and grips; a horizontal platform connecting the front and rear parts; 
anti-tip wheels at the rear; and lastly, a separate, adjustable steering column. 
Regulation No 718/2009 classified the vehicle described therein under heading 
BG TECHNIK 
 
13 
8703 of the CN, as they are not specially designed for carrying handicapped 
persons and do not have any special features alleviating the disability. As the 
SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle is identical to them in material respects, it should, 
in the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court, fall under No 8703 of the CN 
for that reason alone (judgment in Krings in paragraph [16] above). 
[35] It may be added that the material features of the vehicles described in 
Regulation No 718/2009 correspond to electric mobility scooters which the Court 
of Justice classified under heading 8703 of the CN in Lecson (the electric mobility 
scooter had a horizontal platform connecting the front and rear parts, as well as a 
separate, adjustable steering column). Unlike the vehicles under regulation 
No 718/2009, the electric mobility scooter also exceeded the maximum 
permissible speed – as does the SELVO 4800 mobility vehicle (in other words, 
vehicles under Regulation No 718/2009 did not qualify as vehicles for disabled 
persons even though they did not achieve the maximum speed of 10 km/h). 
4. Conclusion 
[36] The Supreme Administrative Court understands that the Court of Justice has 
already twice ruled on the tariff classification of electric mobility vehicles. The 
latter of these decisions is, however, based on a broadly formulated criterion 
which has resulted in diverse interpretations in various Member States. Such 
uncertainty as to the correct interpretation is undesirable, both for importers 
themselves, as well as for public administration and judicial authorities. The only 
body capable of harmonising the interpretation (again) is the Court of Justice. 
[37] Consequently, the Supreme Administrative Court deems it important to 
make the following preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union: 
[…] [reiteration of the preliminary question] 
[38] […] 
[…] [national proceedings] 
Brno, 19 January 2023 
[…] [signatures]