Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG (C-260/00 to C-262/00) and Medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann GmbH & Co. KG (C-263/00) v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz.
Date: 2002-11-07
26 It must be made clear at the outset that, when the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria which will enable the latter to classify the products at issue correctly in the CN, rather than to effect that classification itself, a fortiori since the Court does not necessarily have available to it all the information which is essential in that regard.  In any event the national court is in a better position to do so.
27 The procedure for references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC entails close cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice based on the assignment to each of different functions (Case C-236/98 JämO [2000] ECR I-2189, paragraph 30) and constitutes an instrument by means of which the Court provides the national courts with such interpretation of Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in the cases upon which they are called to adjudicate (Case C-403/98 Monte Arcosu [2001] ECR I-103, paragraph 21).
28 The Court may thus find it necessary, in the context of tariff classification, to determine from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court, having regard to the facts set out in the order for reference, what aspects require an interpretation of Community law to enable that court to effect the tariff classification on which it is asked to adjudicate (see, to that effect, Case C-400/96 Harpegnies [1998] ECR I-5121, paragraph 11).
30 In that respect, it is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the Common Customs Tariff and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see inter alia Case C-276/00 Turbon International [2002] ECR I-1389, paragraph 21).
31 In addition, the Court has consistently held that for the purpose of interpreting the Common Customs Tariff both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the HS Explanatory Notes are important means for ensuring the uniform application of the Tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (see Turbon International, cited above, paragraph 22).
34 The list following that description, and which gives examples of appliances satisfying it, sometimes specifies that the product in question must be made to measure (orthopaedic footwear, special insoles).  That has led the Court to find that sandals and shoes which can be assimilated to mass-produced inner soles or to mass-produced footwear the soles of which support the arch do not constitute `orthopaedic appliances' under CN heading 9021 (3M Medica, cited above, paragraph 14).
37 The requirement of being made to measure or at least adjustable to fit the patient reflects the desire to avoid classifying in heading 9021 products which are `ordinary' products, that is to say, simple products which lack the characteristics specific to the products mentioned in the first explanatory note to heading 9021.  The HS Explanatory Notes in fact describe Chapter 90 of the CN as covering a category of instruments and appliances of which, as a general rule, the essential characteristics are the finish of their manufacture and their high degree of precision.
39 The criteria for distinguishing simple or ordinary products from those serving a medical purpose therefore include the method of manufacture of the product concerned, the nature of the materials of which it is made, its adjustability to the handicaps which it is intended to correct or other special characteristics, in particular the specificity of its purpose.