Case C-361/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 8 July 2011 — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, Netherlands, customs regulations, interpretation of the law








C_2011282EN.01000901.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 8 July 2011 — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat
(Case C-361/11)
2011/C 282/16
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

Questions referred







1.


In the light of its examination … concerning print and copying speeds, the Rechtbank requests the Court of Justice to provide it with further guidance on the answer to the question of the significance to be attached to a situation in which the print and copying speeds are determined by the same printing unit and the difference in speed between those functions is attributable solely to the fact that a document to be copied must first be scanned before printing can take place.










2.


In the light of its examination … concerning the number of paper trays and the presence of a sheet feeder, the Rechtbank requests the Court of Justice to clarify whether its guidance in the judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others [2008] ECR I-9489 in that connection must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of more than one paper tray and a sheet feeder are objective characteristics which indicate that the device concerned is a copying device rather than a printing unit.










3.


In the light of its examination … concerning the appraisal of the question as to what is the essential characteristic of the devices here at issue, in the light of, inter alia, the criteria laid down by the Cour d’appel de Paris in its judgment of 20 May 2010 in this matter with regard to devices similar to those here at issue, the Rechtbank requests the Court of Justice to provide it with further guidance on the question whether the value and weight of the central printing unit (the print engine) must be attributed to the print function or to the copying function and whether the value and weight of the scanner must be fully or partly attributed to the copying function.










4.


In the light of the examination carried out by the Rechtbank, is the rate of customs duty of 6 % specified for CN code 8443 31 91 by Regulation No 1031/2008 (1) valid in so far as it applies to MFPs [multifunctional printers] which, according to the guidance given by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others, ought to have been classified under CN code 8471 60 20 if they were imported before 1 January 2007?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1).