CELEX: 62013CA0547
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-547/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams — Latvia) — ‘Oliver Medical’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 — Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories)

27.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 138/12
            
         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams — Latvia) — ‘Oliver Medical’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-547/13) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 - Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories))
   (2015/C 138/15)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant:‘Oliver Medical’ SIA
   
      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   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 as amended, successively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as medical instruments or appliances, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature, or as mechano-therapy appliances, under heading 9019 thereof, or rather as electrical apparatus, having an individual function, under heading 8543 thereof, it is appropriate to take account of all the relevant factors in the case, to the extent that they relate to characteristics and objective properties inherent to those goods. Among the relevant factors, it is necessary to assess the use for which the product is intended by the manufacturer and the methods and place of its use. Thus, the fact that the product is intended to treat one or more different pathologies and that that treatment must be carried out in an authorised medical centre and under the supervision of a practitioner are indications capable of establishing that that product is intended for medical use. Conversely, the fact that a product mainly brings about aesthetic improvement, that it may be operated outside a medical environment, for example in a beauty parlour, and without the intervention of a practitioner are indications that that product is not intended for medical use. The dimensions, weight and technology used are not decisive factors for the classification of goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature.
   
      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.