Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.
Date: 2016-05-26
16


In that connection, it should be recalled 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 (judgments of 7 November 2002 in Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth, C‑260/00 to C‑263/00, EU:C:2002:637, paragraph 26, and 16 February 2006 in Proxxon, C‑500/04, EU:C:2006:111, paragraph 23).
17


However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see judgment of 22 December 2010 in Lecson Elektromobile, C‑12/10, EU:C:2010:823, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).
18


It should also be recalled 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 found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and of the section or chapter notes (see, in particular, judgments of 16 September 2004 in DFDS, C‑396/02, EU:C:2004:536, paragraph 27; 15 September 2005 in Intermodal Transports, C‑495/03, EU:C:2005:552, paragraph 47; and 15 February 2007 in RUMA, C‑183/06, EU:C:2007:110, paragraph 27).
19


Finally, the Explanatory Notes to the CN drawn up by the Commission are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (judgments of 26 October 2006 in Turbon International, C‑250/05, EU:C:2006:681, paragraph 16, and 20 May 2010 in Data I/O, C‑370/08, EU:C:2006:681, paragraph 30).
20


The content of those notes must therefore be in accordance with the provisions of the CN and may not alter their meaning (see judgment of 27 November 2008 in Metherma, C‑403/07, EU:C:2008:657, paragraph 48).
21


That being said, it is important to note that, as regards headings 8703 and 8713 of the CN, the Court has already held that it is apparent from the wording of those headings themselves that the difference between them results from the fact that the first covers means of transport for persons in general, whereas the second applies specifically to means of transport for disabled persons (see, judgment of 22 December 2010 in Lecson Elektromobile, C‑12/10, EU:C:2010:823, paragraph 18).
22


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, to that effect, judgments of 1 June 1995 inThyssen Haniel Logistic, C‑459/93, EU:C:1995:160, paragraph 13; 5 April 2001 in Deutsche Nichimen, C‑201/99, EU:C:2001:199, paragraph 20; and 18 July 2007 in Olicom, C‑142/06, EU:C:2007:449, paragraph 18).
25


Furthermore, it should be added that the Court has already held, in relation to the interpretation of heading 8703 of the CN, that the fact that electric mobility scooters may be used, where appropriate, by disabled persons or even may be adapted for use by disabled persons does not affect the tariff classification of such vehicles, since they are suitable for being used for a number of other activities by persons who do not suffer from any disability, but who for one reason or another prefer to travel short distances other than on foot, like golfers or persons going shopping (judgment of 22 December 2010 in Lecson Elextromobile, C‑12/10, EU:C:2010:823, paragraph 25).
31


Following the ratification by the European Union of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 (OJ 2010 L 23, p. 35), the Court has held that the concept of ‘handicap’, within the meaning of Directive 2000/78, must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers (see judgment of 18 December 2014 in FOA, C‑354/13, EU:C:2014:2463, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
32


Thus, the words ‘disabled persons’ used in heading 8713 of the CN must have a more specific scope which follows a uniform interpretation of EU law taking account of the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant regulations (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 January 1984 in Ekro, 327/82, EU:C:1984:11, paragraph 11, and 9 March 2006 in Commission v Spain, C‑323/03, EU:C:2006:159, paragraph 32).