Nutricia NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2014-04-30
19. It must be stated at the outset that the Court has consistently held 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 CN heading and of the section or chapter notes (see, inter alia, Case C‑459/93 Thyssen Haniel Logistic EU:C:1995:160, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited, and Case C‑291/11 TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) EU:C:2012:459, paragraph 30).
20. In that regard, the Court has already been called on a number of occasions to reply to questions concerning the interpretation of the term ‘medicaments’ in relation to the classification of goods in the CN. In accordance with settled case-law, in order to classify products in Chapter 30 of the CN, it is necessary to examine whether those products have clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human organism or whether they are capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments. Even where the product in question does not have an intrinsic therapeutic effect, but is used in the prevention or treatment of a disease or ailment, it must, provided that it is specifically intended for such a use, be regarded as having been prepared for therapeutic use (see, inter alia, TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) EU:C:2012:459, paragraphs 40 and 42).
21. It is apparent from the case-law cited in the two preceding paragraphs that the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to the product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (see, inter alia, Krings EU:C:2004:122, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited). According to the case-law of the Court, a product which, on account of its objective characteristics and properties, is clearly intended for medical use may be classified in Chapter 30 of the CN (see Thyssen Haniel Logistic EU:C:1995:160, paragraph 14, and TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) EU:C:2012:459, paragraph 41).
26. It is, admittedly, true that note 1(a) to Chapter 30 of the CN, which excludes from that chapter food preparations and supplements and beverages other than nutritional preparations for intravenous administration, is a valid aid to interpreting the CN. In this regard, the Court has already held on a number of occasions that both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the explanatory notes to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council, now the World Customs Organisation, may be regarded as useful aids to interpreting that tariff (see Case C‑395/93 Neckermann Versand EU:C:1994:318, paragraph 5; Joined Cases C‑59/94 and C‑64/94 Pardo & Fils and Camicas EU:C:1995:326, paragraph 10; and Case C‑338/95 Wiener SI EU:C:1997:552, paragraph 11).
27. However, it should be stressed that the explanatory notes drawn up in relation to that harmonised system by the World Customs Organisation and in relation to the CN by the European Commission are interpretative in character and do not have legally binding force (see, inter alia, Case C‑396/02 DFDS EU:C:2004:536, paragraph 28; Case C‑15/05 Kawasaki Motors Europe EU:C:2006:259, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited; and Case C‑312/07 JVC France EU:C:2008:324, paragraph 37).
28. In this regard it must be noted that it is clear from the actual wording of note 1(a) to Chapter 30 of the CN that dietetic foods or beverages, other than nutritional preparations for intravenous administration, which, without being part of the daily diet, are nevertheless used purely for feeding purposes are excluded from that chapter.