Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 March 1978. - Robert Bosch GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht Hamburg - Germany. - Case 135/77.



European Court reports 1978 Page 00855

Greek special edition Page 00303

Portuguese special edition Page 00321



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

1 . QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - JUDGMENT - OPERATIVE PART - INTERPRETATION - REFERENCE TO THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

( EEC TREATY , ART . 177 )

2 . COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES - DETERMINATION - NORMAL PRICE OF GOODS - VALUE OF A PATENT FOR A PROCESS - INCLUSION - CONDITIONS

( REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 3 )

Summary

1 . THE OPERATIVE PART OF AN INTERPRETATIVE JUDGMENT GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT .

2 . ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE NORMAL PRICE OF GOODS INCLUDES THE VALUE OF A PATENT FOR A PROCESS WHERE THE PROTECTED PROCESS IS INSEPARABLY EMBODIED IN THE GOODS . THIS IS THE CASE WHERE THE CARRYING OUT OF THE PROCESS CONSTITUTES THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THE GOODS AND WHERE THE PROCESS MAY ONLY BE PUT INTO EFFECT BY THE USE OF THOSE GOODS .

Parties

IN CASE 135/77

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN :

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH , GERLINGEN-SCHILLERHOHE

AND

HAUPTZOLLAMT HILDESHEIM ( HILDESHEIM PRINCIPAL CUSTOMS OFFICE )

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 ON THE VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISCH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 ( I ), P . 170 ) AND OF THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE ON 14 JULY 1977 IN CASE 1/77 ,

Grounds

1BY ORDER OF 6 OCTOBER 1977 , WHICH REACHED THE COURT ON 8 NOVEMBER 1977 , THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 ON THE VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 ( I ), P . 170 ), IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 3 THEREOF , AND OF THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE ON 14 JULY 1977 IN CASE 1/77 (( 1977 )) ECR 1473 ).

2THE QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE VALUE OF A PATENT FOR A PROCESS IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NORMAL PRICE OF GOODS ONLY IF THE PROCESS CAN ONLY BE PUT INTO EFFECT BY THE USE OF THOSE GOODS OR WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE PATENT FOR THE PROCESS MUST ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE NORMAL PRICE IF , ALTHOUGH THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THOSE GOODS CONSISTS IN THE CARRYING OUT OF THE PROCESS , THE PROCESS CAN ALSO BE USED IN CONNEXION WITH OTHER TYPES OF GOODS .

3THE DECISION IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT ALREADY PROVIDES THAT :

' ' BY ONLY MENTIONING PATENTED INVENTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH GOODS ARE MANUFACTURED , ARTICLE 3 SEEMS TO EXCLUDE PATENTED INVENTIONS WHICH RELATE TO THE PROCESS OF USE OF THE ARTICLE . HOWEVER , THIS DISTINCTION LOSES ITS MEANING IN CASES IN WHICH THE MANUFACTURED ARTICLE AND THE PROCESS OF USE THEREOF ARE SO CLOSELY LINKED THAT THE MANUFACTURED ARTICLE AND THE PROCESS OF USE ARE EMBODIED IN ONE AND THE SAME ARTICLE . IN FACT THE RESULT OF AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE BASIC PROVISION LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 1 OF THE REGULATION IS THAT A PATENTED PROCESS , THE CARRYING OUT OF WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ONLY PROFITABLE USE OF THE GOODS AND WHICH IS ONLY PUT INTO EFFECT BY THE USE OF THOSE GOODS , IS REGARDED AS EMBODIED IN THE IMPORTED GOODS ' ' .

4THE OPERATIVE PART OF THAT JUDGMENT MUST THEREFORE BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THAT PARAGRAPH OF THE DECISION .

IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO STATE TO THAT EFFECT THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN .

Decision on costs

COSTS

5THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .

SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE , SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED , A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG BY ORDER OF 6 OCTOBER 1977 HEREBY RULES :

ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE NORMAL PRICE OF GOODS INCLUDES THE VALUE OF A PATENT FOR A PROCESS WHERE THE PROTECTED PROCESS IS INSEPARABLY EMBODIED IN THE GOODS . THIS IS THE CASE WHERE THE CARRYING OUT OF THE PROCESS CONSTITUTES THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THE GOODS AND WHERE THE PROCESS MAY ONLY BE PUT INTO EFFECT BY THE USE OF THOSE GOODS .