2M-Locatel A/S v Skatteministeriet.
Date: 2018-09-20
26


As a preliminary point, 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 effect the classification in question (judgment of 12 April 2018, Medtronic, C‑227/17, EU:C:2018:247, paragraph 33).
27


According to the Court’s settled case-law, 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 corresponding section or chapter notes (see, inter alia, judgments of 14 April 2011, British Sky Broadcasting Group and Pace, C‑288/09 and C‑289/09, EU:C:2011:248, paragraph 60, and of 22 November 2012, Digitalnet and Others, C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11, EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 27).
29


Furthermore, the Explanatory Notes to the CN drawn up by the Commission may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various headings but do not have legally binding force (see, inter alia, judgments of 14 April 2011, British Sky Broadcasting Group and Pace, C‑288/09 and C‑289/09, EU:C:2011:248, paragraph 63, and of 22 November 2012, Digitalnet and Others, C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11, EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 33).
32


In that regard, it must be noted that the expressions ‘video reception’ and ‘television reception’ refer to two identical concepts (judgment of 22 November 2012, Digitalnet and Others, C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11, EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 29).
36


Failing any definition of that concept in the CN, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the meaning and scope of terms for which EU law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the objectives of the rules of which they are part (judgment of 22 November 2012, Digitalnet and Others, C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11, EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 38).
45


Admittedly, it follows from the Court’s settled case-law that the primacy of international agreements concluded by the European Union over provisions of secondary legislation means that such provisions must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with those agreements (judgments of 14 April 2011, British Sky Broadcasting Group and Pace, C‑288/09 and C‑289/09, EU:C:2011:248, paragraph 83, and of 22 November 2012, Digitalnet and Others, C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11, EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 39).
47


Moreover, it should be recalled that, for the period prior to the expiry date of the reasonable period granted to the European Union in accordance with the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes to comply with the recommendations or decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the EU Courts cannot conduct a review of the lawfulness of the EU measures in the light of the WTO rules, without rendering that reasonable period ineffective (judgment of 17 January 2013, Hewlett-Packard Europe, C‑361/11, EU:C:2013:18, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).