Case C-363/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VII ème arrondissement de Paris (France), lodged on 2 August 2007 — Hewlett Packard International SARL v Administration des douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, interpretation of the law, printer

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris (France),
lodged on 2 August 2007 — Kip Europe SA, KIP UK Ltd,
Caretrex Logistiek BV, Utax GmbH v Administration des
douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits
indirects

essential character’ and its effect would be to classify printers
of the kind described under heading 9009 12 00?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 70, p. 9).

(Case C-362/07)

(2007/C 269/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kip Europe SA, Kip UK Ltd, Caretrex Logistiek BV,
Utax GmbH

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris (France),
lodged on 2 August 2007 — Hewlett Packard International
SARL v Administration des douanes — Direction générale
des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-363/07)

(2007/C 269/43)

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Administration des douanes — Direction générale des
douanes et droits indirects

Referring court

Questions referred

1. Does the copy function of a multifunction apparatus of the
kind described in these proceedings, designed to operate
through a direct connection or a network with one or more
computers, but capable, as regards the copying function only,
of operating autonomously, constitute a 'specific function
other than data processing' within the meaning of Note 5(E)
to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature?

the existence of

2. In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question,
specific function, which is
that
does
expressly acknowledged not to give the product its essential
character, mean that classification in Chapter 84, pursuant to
Note 5(E), is to be excluded, despite the existence of printing
and scanner functions associated with data processing?

3. If that is the case, and in relation to equipment made up of
three materially distinct modules
scanner and
computer), should the classification not be made on the basis
of General Rule 3(b)?

(printer,

4. More generally, on a correct interpretation of the Harmo-
nised System and of
the Combined Nomenclature, must
printers of the kind described in this procedure be classified
under heading 8471 60 or 9009 12 00?

5. Is

the

case

it not

that Commission Regulation (EC)
No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006 (1) is invalid, in particular
because it is contrary to the Harmonised System, to the
Combined Nomenclature and to Rules 1 and 3(b) of the
General Rules for
the Harmonised
the Interpretation of
System and the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it relies
on the concept of a ‘function that gives the apparatus its

Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hewlett Packard International SARL

Defendant: Administration des douanes — Direction générale des
douanes et droits indirects,

Questions referred

1. Does the copy function of a multifunction apparatus of the
kind described in these proceedings, designed to operate
through a direct connection or a network with one or more
computers, but capable, as regards the copying function only,
of operating autonomously, constitute a ‘specific function
other than data processing’ within the meaning of Note 5(E)
to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature?

the existence of

2. In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question,
does
specific function, which is
that
expressly acknowledged not to give the product its essential
character, mean that classification in Chapter 84, pursuant to
Note 5(E), is to be excluded despite the existence of printing
and scanner functions associated with data processing?

3. If that is the case, and in relation to equipment made up of
two materially distinct modules (printer and scanner), should
the classification not be made on the basis of General
Rule 3(b)?

C 269/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

4. More generally, on a correct interpretation of the Harmo-
nised System and of
the Combined Nomenclature, must
printers of the kind described in this procedure be classified
under heading 8471 60 or 9009 12 00?

delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date
upon which the judgment
in Case C-415/03 has been
complied with;

5. Is

the

case

it not

that Commission Regulation (EC)
No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006 (1) is invalid, in particular
because it is contrary to the Harmonised System, to the
Combined Nomenclature and to Rules 1 and 3(b) of the
General Rules for
the Harmonised
the Interpretation of
System and the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it relies
on the concept of a ‘function that gives the apparatus its
essential character’ and its effect would be to classify printers
of the kind described under heading 9009 12 00?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 70, p. 9).

Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-369/07)

(2007/C 269/44)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Righini and I. Khatzigiannis)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that by not having taken the necessary measures to
comply with the judgment of the Court of 12 May 2005 in
Case C-415/03,
the Hellenic
Republic to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the deci-
sion of 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways,
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that decision and Article 228(1) EC;

relating to the failure of

— Order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission the
proposed penalty payment of EUR 53 611 for each day of
delay in compliance with the judgment in Case C-415/03
relating to the decision of 2002, running from the date of

— Order the Hellenic Republic to make a lump sum payment
to the Commission, the amount of which is calculated by
multiplying a daily amount by the number of days over
which the failure to fulfil obligations continues, running
from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-415/03
until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case
in relation to the decision of 2002;

— Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. In the judgment of 12 May 2005 in Case C-415/03 the
Court held that, by failing to take within the prescribed
period all the measures necessary for repayment of the aid
found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common
market — except that relating to the contributions to the
national social security institution (IKA) —,
in accordance
with Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/372 of
11 December 2002, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil
its obligations under that article.

2. Given that

the Hellenic Republic has not notified the
Commission of any measure to comply with the judgment of
the Court
in Case C-415/03, despite assurances to the
contrary from the Greek authorities, and that the Hellenic
Republic has not yet recovered the aid held to be incompa-
tible with the decision of 2002, the Commission has decided
to bring the case before the Court of
Justice under
Article 228 EC.

3. In accordance with Article 228 EC and the relevant case-law
of
the Court, where the Commission brings proceedings
before the Court of Justice because a Member State has not
taken the measures necessary to comply with a judgment of
the Court within the time limit laid down by the Commis-
sion, the Commission is to specify the amount of the lump
sum and/or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State
and which the Commission considers appropriate in the
circumstances. The final decision as to the financial penalties
to be imposed, as provided for by Article 228 EC, is taken
by the Court, which in this case has unlimited jurisdiction.

4. Both the amount of the penalty payment and the amount of
the lump sum proposed by the Commission to the Court in
the present action are calculated according to the method
established in the Communication of the Commission of
13 December 2005 on the application of Article 228 EC.