Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover.
Date: 2015-09-17
24. First of all, 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 do so (see judgments in Proxxon , C‑500/04, EU:C:2006:111, paragraph 23; Digitalnet and Others , C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11, EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 61; and Vario Tek , C‑178/14, EU:C:2015:152, paragraph 18).
25. Next, it should be recalled that it is settled case-law of the Court that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods 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 of the notes to the sections or chapters (see, inter alia, judgments in Thyssen Haniel Logistic , C‑459/93, EU:C:1995:160, paragraph 8, and Nutricia , C‑267/13, EU:C:2014:277, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
26. It is also 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 for interpreting the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (see, inter alia, judgment in TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) , C‑291/11, EU:C:2012:459, paragraph 32).
29. 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, judgment in Nutricia , C‑267/13, EU:C:2014:277, paragraph 20).
30. It follows from the case-law cited in paragraphs 25 and 29 of the present judgment 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 is capable of being assessed on the basis of the product's objective characteristics and properties. 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 judgments in Thyssen Haniel Logistic , C‑459/93, EU:C:1995:160, paragraphs 13 and 14, and Nutricia , C‑267/13, EU:C:2014:277, paragraph 21).
35. Furthermore, 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 (see, to that effect, judgment in Nutricia , C‑267/13, EU:C:2014:277, paragraph 28). It follows therefrom that goods manufactured solely for nutritional preparations which form part of the daily diet cannot be classified as ‘medicaments consisting of constituents which have been mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses’ within the meaning of heading 3003 of the CN.
36. It follows, in addition, from the Explanatory Notes to the HS that food preparations containing only nutritional substances cannot be classified as ‘medicaments’ under heading 30.03 of the HS, corresponding to heading 3003 of the CN (see, to that effect, judgment in LTM , C‑201/96, EU:C:1997:523, paragraph 48). That is the case in particular of goods which are purely substitute foodstuffs and contain no active medicinal substance as regards allergies.