Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss.
Date: 2018-04-12
33


As a preliminary point, it must be pointed out 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 effect the classification in question (judgment of 9 February 2017, Madaus, C‑441/15, EU:C:2017:103, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
34


According to the Court’s settled case-law, 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 corresponding section or chapter notes (judgment of 26 May 2016, Invamed Group and Others, C‑198/15, EU:C:2016:362, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).
36


According to the Court’s settled case-law also, the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification, provided that 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 (judgment of 26 May 2016, Invamed Group and Others, C‑198/15, EU:C:2016:362, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
37


Moreover, it must be borne in mind that even though the Explanatory Notes to the HS lack binding force, they are an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff and, as such, may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation. The same is true of the Explanatory Notes to the CN (judgment of 12 June 2014, Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
39


As is clear from the wording of that heading, the function to be performed by the appliance concerned is decisive for the purpose of determining the subheading under which the appliance is to be classified.
44


Therefore, classification under that heading may be envisaged only if the systems at issue in the main proceedings do not come within any of the other subheadings of CN heading 9021 (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 July 2006, Uroplasty, C‑514/04, EU:C:2006:464, paragraph 56).
59


Moreover, it should be noted that, while the application by analogy of a classification regulation to products similar to those covered by that regulation facilitates consistent interpretation of the CN and the equal treatment of traders, such an application by analogy is neither necessary nor possible where the Court, by its answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling, has provided the referring court with all the information necessary to classify a product under the appropriate CN heading (judgment of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraphs 61 and 62).
60


It follows that if the referring court were to conclude that the spinal fixation systems at issue in the main proceedings, having regard to their objective characteristics and properties as well as their intended and actual use (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 March 2015, Oliver Medical, C‑547/13, EU:C:2015:139, paragraphs 51 and 52, and of 25 February 2016, G. E. Security, C‑143/15, EU:C:2016:115, paragraph 55), were not intended principally for the treatment of fractures, then Implementing Regulation No 1214/2014 should not be taken into account for the purpose of their classification under the appropriate CN subheading.