Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri.
Date: 2013-06-20
27. It should be noted in that regard that 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 (see, inter alia, Case 40/88 Weber  [1989] ECR 1395, paragraph 13; Case C‑142/06 Olicom  [2007] ECR I‑6675, paragraph 16; and Case C‑215/10 Pacific World and FDD International  [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 28).
28. It should also be recalled that the HS Explanatory Notes 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 (see, to that effect, Case C‑11/93 Siemens Nixdorf [1994] ECR I‑1945, paragraph 12; Case C‑15/05 Kawasaki Motors Europe [2006] ECR I‑3657, paragraph 36; and Pacific World and FDD International , paragraph 29).
41. In that regard, it must be noted that the intended use of a product may also 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 Case C‑183/06 RUMA  [2007] ECR I‑1559, paragraph 36; Olicom , paragraph 18, and Case C‑123/09 Roeckl Sporthandschuhe  [2010] ECR I‑4065, paragraph 28).
47. At the outset, it must be borne in mind that it is settled case-law that it cannot be regarded as contrary to European Union law for national law, as far as the withdrawal of administrative measures and the recovery of sums wrongly paid by public authorities are concerned, to take into account, in addition to the principle of legality, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since those principles form part of the legal order of the European Union. Those principles must be observed all the more strictly in the case of rules liable to have financial consequences (see Joined Cases C‑383/06 to C‑385/06 Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening and Others  [2008] ECR I‑1561, paragraph 52 and case-law cited).
49. Therefore, the legal basis for the repayment of amounts wrongly paid by the European Union under Regulation No 1265/2001 is in the provisions of Regulation No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (see, by analogy, as regards the recovery of subsidies wrongly paid under the Structural Funds, Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening and Others , paragraph 39).
50. In particular, Article 8(1)(c) of Regulation No 1258/1999 requires the Member States to recover sums lost as a result of irregularities or negligence without there being any need for authority to do so under national law (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 205/82 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor and Others  [1983] ECR 2633, paragraph 22).
51. In that context, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be applied in accordance with the rules of European Union law (see, by analogy, Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening and Others , paragraph 53).
52. In that regard, it must be stated that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied upon against an unambiguous provision of European Union law; nor can the conduct of a national authority responsible for applying European Union law, which acts in breach of that law, give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of a trader of beneficial treatment contrary to European Union law (see Joined Cases C‑31/91 to C‑44/91 Lageder and Others [1993] ECR I‑1761, paragraph 35; Case C‑94/05 Emsland-Stärke  [2006] ECR I‑2619, paragraph 31; and Case C‑153/10 Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe)  [2011] ECR I‑2775, paragraph 47).