Uwe Clees v Hauptzollamt Wuppertal.
Date: 1998-12-03
12 It should be observed as a preliminary point that the interpretation given by a judgment of the Court to a provision concerning tariff classification cannot be altered by the Commission's adoption of explanatory notes. While such notes constitute an important means of ensuring the uniform interpretation of the CN by the customs authorities of the Member States, they do not have legally binding force (Case C-35/93 Develop Dr Eisbein v Hauptzollamt Stuttgart-West [1994] ECR I-2655, paragraph 21).  The issue is whether the notes in question correspond to the principles established by the Court's case-law concerning the interpretation of the relevant tariff provision.
13 Next, the Court has held that, in order for an article to be classified under the tariff heading at issue, it is not sufficient that it satisfies only the criteria for `collectors' pieces', that is to say that it merely possesses the requisite characteristics for inclusion in a collection.  It must also be of `historical or ethnographic interest'.  The Court has thus held that those two conditions are cumulative (see Daiber, paragraph 22).
14 With regard to the first condition, articles which meet the four criteria listed in the first point of the operative part of the judgment in Daiber possess the requisite characteristics for inclusion in a collection. The criteria set out in the first four indents of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of the Commission's explanatory notes, relating to that first condition, correspond to those laid down by the Court in Daiber.
15 As for the second condition, namely that the article in question must also be of historical or ethnographic interest, the Court observed in Daiber that the term `history' covered human development and achievement in all fields (paragraph 23), including equally that of car design.  Thus, motor vehicles, which relate to human achievements in that field of technology, may be of historical or ethnographic interest when they evidence a significant step in the evolution of human achievements or illustrate a period of that evolution (Daiber, second point of the operative part).
18 In that regard, it should be noted that the premiss upon which the Commission relied, namely that a motor vehicle is basically a utility article with a relatively short life, and subject to constant technical development, is correct and consistent with the guidance provided by the Court in Daiber.  Inasmuch as the term `history' covers human achievement in all fields, account should be taken of the specific features of each field.  It is therefore appropriate to take into consideration that motor vehicles are articles built for a purpose which is, in principle, utitilitarian and not monumental, and that they are subject to the technical capacities of their age.
23 That conclusion is, moreover, borne out by the purpose, as acknowledged by the Court, of the exemption from duty under heading 9705 of the CN, namely facilitating international trade in objects of cultural and educational value (Daiber, paragraph 15).
24 However, the fact that a vehicle meets the three criteria set out by the Commission is not sufficient for it to be classified under heading 9705 of the CN.  First, compliance with those three criteria merely establishes a presumption of historical or ethnographic interest, which is rebutted where the competent authority establishes that the vehicle's specific character is not in any way linked to a period in the past in the sense that the vehicle is not liable to evidence a significant step in the evolution of human achievements or illustrate a period of that evolution.  Secondly, it is also necessary to meet the four criteria, referred to in the first point of the operative part of the judgment in Daiber, concerning the characteristics which a vehicle must possess in order to be included in a collection.