Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-495/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Intermodal Transport BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification in the combined nomenclature — Heading 8709 — ‘Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor’ — Article 234 EC — Obligation of a national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling — Conditions — Binding tariff information issued for a third party by the customs authorities of another Member State concerning a similar vehicle)
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, interpretation of the law, tariff nomenclature

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/5

1. Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude legislation under
which a Member State denies non-resident taxpayers who hold the
major part of their wealth in the State where they are resident enti-
tlement to the allowances which it grants to resident taxpayers.

relating to similar goods issued to a person not party to the
dispute by the customs authorities of another Member State is
submitted, and that court or tribunal takes the view that the tariff
those two
classification made in that
circumstances:

information is wrong,

2. Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude a rule laid down by a
bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation such as
the rule at issue in the main proceedings from not being extended,
in a situation and in circumstances such as those in the main
proceedings, to residents of a Member State which is not party to
that convention.

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

— cannot result, in respect of a court or tribunal against whose
decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law, in the
court or tribunal being under an obligation to refer to the
Court questions on interpretation;

— cannot,

in themselves, automatically result,

in respect of a
court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial
remedy under national
in the court or tribunal being
under an obligation to refer to the Court questions on interpre-
tation.

law,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-495/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Intermodal Transport
BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifica-
tion in the combined nomenclature — Heading 8709 —
‘Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor’ — Article 234 EC —
Obligation of a national court to refer a question for a preli-
minary ruling — Conditions — Binding tariff information
issued for a third party by the customs authorities of another
Member State concerning a similar vehicle)

(2005/C 271/09)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-495/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
lands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the
in the proceedings between
Court on 24 November 2003,
Intermodal Transport BV and
van
Staatssecretaris
Financiën — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann,
Schiemann
the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K.
President of
(Rapporteur), E.
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15
September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Juhász and M.

Ilešič,

1. Article 234 EC must be interpreted as meaning that when, in
proceedings relating to the tariff classification of specific goods
before a national court or tribunal, a binding tariff information

A court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial
remedy under national law is, however, required, where a question
of Community law is raised before it, to comply with its obligation
to make a reference, unless it has established that the question
raised is irrelevant or that the Community provision in question
has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct appli-
cation of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for
any reasonable doubt. The existence of such a possibility must be
assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of Community
law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise
and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the Com-
munity; the existence of the abovementioned binding tariff infor-
mation must cause that court or tribunal to take particular care in
its assessment of whether there is no reasonable doubt as to the
correct application of the combined nomenclature 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98
of 26 October 1998, taking account, in particular, of the three
criteria mentioned above.

2. Heading 8709 of the combined nomenclature must be interpreted
as not covering a vehicle equipped with a diesel engine having an
output of 132 kilowatts at 2 500 revolutions per minute and
automatic transmission with four forward gears and one reverse
gear, fitted with a closed cab and a fifth wheel allowing a lift
height of 60 centimetres, which has a maximum carrying capacity
of 32 000 kilograms, a very small turning circle and is designed
for moving semi-trailers on industrial premises and in industrial
buildings. Such a vehicle is neither a works truck used for the
transport of goods nor a tractor of
the type used in railway
stations, within the meaning of that heading.

(1) OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.