Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas.
Date: 2014-06-12
27. As a preliminary point, it should be recalled, first of all, that, when the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of classification for customs purposes, 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 (Joined Cases C‑260/00 to C‑263/00 Lohman and Medi Bayreuth EU:C:2002:637, paragraph 26; Case C‑12/10 Lecson Elektromobile  EU:C:2010:823, paragraph 15; and Joined Cases C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11 Digitalnet and Others  EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 61).
29. Second, it must be stated that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU, providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. With this in mind, the Court of Justice may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (Case C‑334/95 Krüger EU:C:1997:378, paragraphs 22 and 23, and Case C‑249/11 Byankov  EU:C:2012:608, paragraph 57).
33. In order to answer that question, it must be stated, first, that the general rules for the interpretation of the CN provide that the classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any section or chapter notes, the titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters being provided for ease of reference only.
34. Second, it is settled case-law 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, Case C‑339/98 Peacock  EU:C:2000:573, paragraph 9; Case C‑495/03 Intermodal Transports  EU:C:2005:105, paragraph 47; Case C‑376/07 Kamino International Logistics  EU:C:2009:105, paragraph 31; and Joined Cases C‑288/09 and C‑289/09 British Sky Broadcasting Group and Pace EU:C:2011:248, paragraph 60).
35. As regards the Explanatory Notes to the HS, it must be added that, in spite of the fact that they 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 (Case C‑173/08 Kloosterboer Services  EU:C:2009:382, paragraph 25, and Case C‑568/11 Agroferm  EU:C:2013:407, paragraph 28). The same is true of the Explanatory Notes to the CN (see, Case C‑35/93 Develop Dr. Eisbein  EU:C:1994:252, paragraph 21, and British Sky Broadcasting Group and Pace EU:C:2011:248, paragraph 92).
51. However, as set out in paragraph 35 of the present judgment, the Explanatory Notes to the CN do not have legally binding force (see Develop Dr. Eisbein  EU:C:1994:252, paragraph 21 and British Sky Broadcasting Group and Pace  EU:C:2011:248, paragraph 92). Consequently, as the Commission observes, the Annex A method must not be regarded as the only method applicable to determine the content of aromatic constituents in a specific product.
52. Furthermore, it must be stated that, according to the case-law of the Court, where it is apparent that they are contrary to the wording of the headings of the CN and the section or chapter notes, the Explanatory Notes to the CN must be disregarded (see, to that effect, Case C‑229/06 Sunshine Deutschland Handelgesellschaft  EU:C:2007:239, paragraph 31; Case C‑312/07 JVC France  EU:2008:324, paragraph 34, and Kamino International Logistics  EU:C:2009:105, paragraphs 49 and 50).
59. In order to give a useful answer to the referring court, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C‑533/08 TNT Express Nederland  EU:C:2010:243, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited, and Case C‑219/11 Brain Products  EU:C:2012:742, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).
60. Furthermore, the need for a uniform interpretation of EU legislation makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered, in case of doubt, in isolation; on the contrary, it requires that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see, to that effect, Case C‑199/08 Eschig EU:C:2009:538, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
63. Furthermore, it must be stated that, since the Explanatory Notes to the CN are intended to facilitate the interpretation of the CN for the purposes of tariff classification, they must be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that the subheadings of the CN are properly applied.