SIA "Oliver Medical" v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests.
Date: 2015-03-04
44. First of all, it must be borne in mind, as a preliminary point, 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 the implementation of 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 (see judgment in Data I/O , C‑297/13, EU:C:2014:331, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
45. Next, 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 sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and in the section or chapter notes (judgment in Delphi Deutschland , C‑423/10, EU:C:2011:315, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
46. Similarly, it is settled case-law that the explanatory notes drawn up by the Commission as regards the CN and by the WCO as regards the HS are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (judgment in Delphi Deutschland , EU:C:2011:315, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
47. Finally, for the purposes of classification under the appropriate heading, it should be recalled 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 judgment in Olicom , C‑142/06, EU:C:2007:449, paragraph 18).
51. In order to establish whether a product is intended for medical use, it is appropriate to take account of all the relevant factors in the case, as set out in the order for reference, to the extent that they are characteristics and objective properties inherent to that product. It is for the importer, at the time of import, to prove that that product is intended for medical use.
52. 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 a medical centre and under the supervision of a practitioner are indications capable of establishing that that product is intended for medical use. Inversely, 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.
53. The fact that a product bears a CE mark certifying the conformity of a medical device with the provisions of Directive 93/42 constitutes one factor among others to be taken into consideration in that regard. None the less, since Directive 93/42 pursues objectives different from those of the CN and in order to maintain the coherence between the interpretation of the CN and that of the HS, which is established by an international convention to which the European Union is a contracting party, the fact that a product bears a CE mark cannot be decisive as regards an assessment of whether it is intended for medical use within the meaning of heading 9018 of the CN.
55. It must be borne in mind in that regard that a classification regulation is of general application in so far as it does not apply to an individual trader but, in general, to products which are the same as that examined by the Customs Code Committee. In the interpretation of a classification regulation, in order to determine its scope, account must be taken, inter alia, of its statement of reasons (judgment in Krings , C‑130/02, EU:C:2004:122, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
57. Nevertheless, the application by analogy of a classification regulation, such as Regulation No 119/2008, to products similar to those covered by that regulation facilitates a coherent interpretation of the CN and the equal treatment of traders (see, to that effect, judgment in Krings , EU:C:2004:122, paragraph 35).
69. In that regard, it is clear from the case-law of the Court concerning headings 8473, 8486 and 9018 of the CN that the notion of ‘parts’ implies a whole for the operation of which the part is essential and that the notion of ‘accessories’ implies an interchangeable part designed to adapt a machine for a particular operation, or to increase its range of operations, or to perform a particular service relative to the main function of the machine (see judgment in Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe and Others , C‑336/11, EU:C:2012:500, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). In order to ensure a consistent and uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, those definitions of the notions of ‘parts’ and ‘accessories’ apply, as appropriate, to headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 of the CN.