CELEX: 62015CA0435
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany, Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15) (References for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Video Camera Recorders — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 — Explanatory notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 — Interpretation — Validity)

29.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 168/10
            
         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany, Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15)
   (Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15) (1)
   
   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Video Camera Recorders - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 - Explanatory notes - Interpretation - Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 - Interpretation - Validity))
   (2017/C 168/11)
   Language of the case: German and Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Finanzgericht Hamburg, Rechtbank Noord-Holland
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: GROFA GmbH (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA (C-666/15)
   
      Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15)
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 of 29 November 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in Case C-435/15.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 of 8 August 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in that case, but that it is invalid.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out 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, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted, having regard to the Explanatory Notes to the CN concerning those subheadings, as meaning that video footage of more than 30 minutes recorded in separate files each lasting less than 30 minutes must be considered to be a recording of at least 30 minutes of a single piece of video footage, irrespective of whether the user is unable to perceive the transition from one file to the next during the playback of those files or, conversely, whether he must, in principle, during that playback, open each of the files separately.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the versions resulting, successively, from Implementing Regulations No 1006/2011, No 927/2012 and No 1001/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a video camera recorder which is capable of recording from signals from external sources, without, however, being able to reproduce them by means of an external television receiver or monitor, that video camera recorder being able to play on an external screen or monitor only files which it has itself recorded through its lens, cannot be classified under tariff subheading 8525 80 99 of that Combined Nomenclature.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
   
      OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.