Case C-312/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Paris (France)) — JVC France SAS v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières) (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Camcorders — Explanatory notes — Body of legal rules)
Date: 2008-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audiovisual equipment, import, interpretation of the law, tariff nomenclature, technical standard

C 183/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: James Wood

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Osniecka-
Tamecka, Agent)

Defendant: Fonds de Garantie des victimes des actes de Terror-
isme et d'autres Infractions

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande
instance de Nantes (France) — Commission d'Indemnisation des
Victimes d'infractions — Interpretation of Article [12] of the
EC Treaty — Compatibility, with regard to the general principle
of non-discrimination, of national legislation which excludes a
lawfully
national of another Member State of
residing in France and father of a child holding French nation-
ality who died outside French territory,
to
compensation paid by a Fonds de garantie, on the sole ground
of his nationality

from the right

the Union,

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of
legislation requiring imported
Article 28 EC — National
second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test prior to
their registration, whereas domestic vehicles with the same char-
acteristics are not subject to such a requirement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by subjecting imported second-hand vehicles regis-
tered in other Member States to a roadworthiness test prior to their
registration in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 28 EC;

Operative part of the judgment

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Community law precludes legislation of a Member State which excludes
nationals of other Member States who live and work in its territory
from the grant of compensation intended to make good losses resulting
from offences against the person where the crime in question was not
committed in the territory of that State, on the sole ground that they
do not have the nationality of that State.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 —
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of
Poland

(Case C-170/07) (1)

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal
taxation — Requirement for imported second-hand vehicles to
undergo a roadworthiness test — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC
— Directive 96/96/EC — Recognition of roadworthiness tests
carried out in other Member States)

(2008/C 183/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 June 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
(France)) — JVC France SAS v
d'instance de Paris
(Direction Nationale du
Administration des douanes

Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

(Case C-312/07) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff
classification —
Combined Nomenclature — Camcorders — Explanatory notes
— Body of legal rules)

(2008/C 183/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JVC France SAS

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Hottiaux and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du
Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/5

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de
Paris (France) — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
(OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), in the version applicable to the facts in
the main proceedings — Subheadings 8525 40 91 (video
camera recorders: Only able to record sound and images taken
by the television camera) and 8525 40 99 (other) — Classifica-
tion of camcorders which, when imported, are unable to record
external video sound signals (DV out function) but the video
interface of which can subsequently be activated through the
use of software or an enabler (DV in/out), without the manufac-
turer and the seller having mentioned or endorsed that possibi-
lity — Whether it is possible to effect a change in Community
practice with regard to tariff classification by way of subsequent
retroactive amendments
to the explanatory notes on the
Combined Nomenclature rather than by means of the adoption
of a regulation on tariff classification that would be applicable
only in the future

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 —
the European Communities v Federal
Commission of
Republic of Germany

(Case C-395/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2004/48/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights —
Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 183/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Operative part of the judgment

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Wils and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

and

2000

Regulation

Commission

1. A camcorder may be classified under subheading 8525 40 99 of
the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 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,
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October
(EC) No 2388/2000 of
1999, Commission Regulation
(EC)
13 October
the function for
No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 only if
recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated
camera or microphone is active at the time of customs clearance or
if, even though the manufacturer did not intend to promote that
characteristic, that function may be activated subsequently by simple
modification of the apparatus by a user who does not have special
skills, without modification of the camcorder's hardware. Where the
camcorder is activated subsequently, it is also necessary, first, that,
once activated, it functions in a manner similar to that of another
camcorder whose function for recording images and sounds from
sources other than the integrated camera or microphone is active at
the time of customs clearance and, second, that it functions inde-
pendently. The existence of those conditions must be capable of
being ascertained at the time of customs clearance. It is for the
national court to establish whether those conditions are fulfilled. If
those conditions are not fulfilled the camcorder must be classified
under subheading 8525 40 91 of the Combined Nomenclature.

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M.
Lumma, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary
to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforce-
ment of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and
— Corrigendum — OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

2. The explanatory notes to that Combined Nomenclature relating to
subheading 8525 40 99, published on 6 July 2001 and
23 October 2002, are interpretative in character and do not have
legally binding force. They are in accordance with the wording of
the Combined Nomenclature and do not alter its scope. It follows
that the adoption of a new classification regulation was not neces-
sary.

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all
the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on
the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Federal Republic
of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.