Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond.
Date: 2018-09-13
22


In that regard, the Court has consistently held that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties, as defined in the wording of the relevant CN heading and of the notes to the sections or chapters (judgment of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
23


The Court has also held that the Explanatory Notes drafted by the Commission, in respect of the CN, and those adopted by the WCO, in respect of the HS, are an important aid for interpreting the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force. The Explanatory Notes to the CN do not take the place of those of the HS but should be regarded as complementary to them and consulted jointly with them (judgment of 19 February 2009, KaminoInternational, C‑376/07, EU:C:2009:105, paragraphs 47 and 48 and the case-law cited).
36


In that regard, it must be noted that, in the light of the foregoing analysis, such a classification is excluded. Nonetheless, as the evidence brought to the attention of the Court, during both the written and the oral parts of the procedure, cannot allow it to be ruled out that the images recorded by the camera in question may in fact be viewed as video, it is appropriate to examine whether that camera must be classified under CN subheading 85258091 or 85258099 as a video camera recorder. Although those subheadings are not mentioned by the referring court, it is for the Court of Justice to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the decision to make the reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation in view of the subject matter of the dispute (judgment of 19 October 2017, Otero Ramos, C‑531/15, EU:C:2017:789, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
40


As regards, in the second place, the examination of the validity of Implementing Regulation No 113/2014, it should be noted, first, that it is settled case-law that a classification regulation is of general application in so far as it does not apply to an individual trader but, in general, to goods 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 of, inter alia, its statement of reasons (see judgment of 22 March 2017, GROFA and Others, C‑435/15 and C‑666/15, EU:C:2017:232, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
44


However, it should be noted, secondly, that the Court has consistently held that if a classification regulation is not directly applicable to goods which are not identical, but only similar, to the goods covered by that regulation, the latter is applicable by analogy to such goods. In that regard, it is sufficient if the goods to be classified and those covered by the classification regulation are sufficiently similar (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 March 2017, GROFA and Others, C‑435/15 and C‑666/15, EU:C:2017:232, paragraphs 37 and 38 and the case-law cited).
45


It is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the application by analogy of a classification regulation, such as Implementing Regulation No 113/2014, to goods 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 of 13 July 2006, Anagram International, C‑14/05, EU:C:2006:465, paragraph 32).
48


In that regard, it should be noted that, with respect to the application of the CN, the Council of the European Union has conferred upon the Commission, acting in cooperation with the customs experts of the Member States, broad discretion to define the subject matter of tariff headings falling to be considered for the classification of particular goods. However, the Commission’s power to adopt the measures mentioned in Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 2658/87 does not authorise it to alter the subject matter of the tariff headings which have been defined on the basis of the HS established by the HS Convention whose scope the European Union has undertaken, under Article 3 thereof, not to modify (judgment of 12 February 2015, Raytek and Fluke Europe, C‑134/13, EU:C:2015:82, paragraph 29).