Case C‑547/13

‘Oliver Medical’ SIA

v

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 — Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 4 March 2015

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Goods intended to treat dermovascular and dermatological problems using laser technology and high-intensity light technology — Classification under headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature — Relevant factors

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, Annex I, headings 8543, 9018 and 9019)

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended, successively, by Regulation No 1214/2007, Regulation No 1031/2008, Regulation No 948/2009, Regulation No 861/2010 and Regulation No 1006/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether goods intended to treat dermovascular and dermatological problems, which use laser technology and high-intensity light technology to function, must be classified as medical instruments or appliances, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature, or as mechano-therapy appliances, under heading 9019 thereof, or rather as electrical apparatus, having an individual function, under heading 8543 thereof, it is appropriate to take account of all the relevant factors in the case, to the extent that they relate to characteristics and objective properties inherent to those goods. Among the relevant factors, it is necessary to assess the use for which the product is intended by the manufacturer and the methods and place of its use. Thus, the fact that the product is intended to treat one or more different pathologies and that that treatment must be carried out in an authorised medical centre and under the supervision of a practitioner are indications capable of establishing that that product is intended for medical use. Conversely, the fact that a product mainly brings about aesthetic improvement, that it may be operated outside a medical environment, for example in a beauty parlour, and without the intervention of a practitioner are indications that that product is not intended for medical use. The dimensions, weight and technology used are not decisive factors for the classification of goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(see para. 72, operative part)

Case C‑547/13

‘Oliver Medical’ SIA

v

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 — Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 4 March 2015

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Goods intended to treat dermovascular and dermatological problems using laser technology and high-intensity light technology — Classification under headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature — Relevant factors

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, Annex I, headings 8543, 9018 and 9019)

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended, successively, by Regulation No 1214/2007, Regulation No 1031/2008, Regulation No 948/2009, Regulation No 861/2010 and Regulation No 1006/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether goods intended to treat dermovascular and dermatological problems, which use laser technology and high-intensity light technology to function, must be classified as medical instruments or appliances, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature, or as mechano-therapy appliances, under heading 9019 thereof, or rather as electrical apparatus, having an individual function, under heading 8543 thereof, it is appropriate to take account of all the relevant factors in the case, to the extent that they relate to characteristics and objective properties inherent to those goods. Among the relevant factors, it is necessary to assess the use for which the product is intended by the manufacturer and the methods and place of its use. Thus, the fact that the product is intended to treat one or more different pathologies and that that treatment must be carried out in an authorised medical centre and under the supervision of a practitioner are indications capable of establishing that that product is intended for medical use. Conversely, the fact that a product mainly brings about aesthetic improvement, that it may be operated outside a medical environment, for example in a beauty parlour, and without the intervention of a practitioner are indications that that product is not intended for medical use. The dimensions, weight and technology used are not decisive factors for the classification of goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(see para. 72, operative part)