Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond.
Date: 2017-04-26
39


In this regard, it should be recalled that 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 (see, in particular, judgment of 18 May 2011, Delphi Deutschland, C‑423/10, EU:C:2011:315, paragraph 23).
40


In addition, in accordance with equally well-established case-law, the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent in the product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (see, in particular, judgment of 22 December 2010, Premis Medical, C‑273/09, EU:C:2010:809, paragraph 43).
45


In that regard, the explanatory notes to the CN and those to the HS provide useful indications for the tariff classification of goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings, even though such explanatory notes serve as an aid to interpretation and are not legally binding (see judgment of 27 April 2006, Kawasaki Motors Europe, C‑15/05, EU:C:2006:259, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
47


Therefore, goods of which the essential characteristics are the finish of their manufacture and their high degree of precision, which distinguish them from ordinary goods, are to be classified under CN heading 9021 (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 November 2002, Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth, C‑260/00 to C‑263/00, EU:C:2002:637, paragraph 37).
51


In the second place, the criteria for distinguishing simple or ordinary products from those serving a medical purpose include the method of manufacture of the product concerned and the specificity of its purpose (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 November 2002, Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth, C‑260/00 to C‑263/00, EU:C:2002:637, paragraph 39).
59


It is apparent from the case-law, first, that a classification regulation is adopted by the Commission when the classification in the CN of a particular product is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a matter for dispute and, secondly, that such a regulation is of general application in so far as it does not apply to an individual trader but, in general, to products identical to the one thus classified (see judgment of 19 February 2009, Kamino International Logistics, C‑376/07, EU:C:2009:105, paragraph 63).
61


Admittedly, according to case-law, 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 (judgment of 4 March 2004, Krings, EU:C:2004:122, paragraph 35).
62


However, 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.