GSV Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága.
Date: 2014-04-09
27. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that it is settled case-law that the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions. EU provisions must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all EU languages. Where there is a divergence between the various language versions of an EU text, the provision in question must thus be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and the purpose of the rules of which it forms part (see Case C‑558/11 Kurcums Metal  EU:C:2012:721, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
36. As regards whether the characteristics of the product imported by the applicant in the main proceedings, as described in the order for reference, correspond to all the characteristics of that tariff heading, it is necessary to point 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, in particular 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 (see, to that effect, Case C‑500/04 Proxxon  EU:C:2006:111, paragraph 23, 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).
37. However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts and having regard to the information set out in the order for reference, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see, to that effect, Cases C‑260/00 to C‑263/00 Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth  EU:C:2002:637, paragraph 28, and Case C‑56/08 Pärlitigu  EU:C:2009:467, paragraph 23).
38. In that regard, it is appropriate to bear in mind settled case-law, according to which, 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 section or chapter notes (see, inter alia, Proxxon  EU:C:2006:111, paragraph 21; Case C‑140/08 Rakvere Lihakombinaat  EU:C:2009:667, paragraph 42; and Digitalnet and Others EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
43. Finally, it must be borne in mind that the intended use of the 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, inter alia, Case C‑229/06 Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft  EU:C:2007:239, paragraph 28; Joined Cases C‑208/06 and C‑209/06 Medion and Canon Deutschland  EU:C:2007:553, paragraph 37; and Case C‑291/11 TNT Freight Management  EU:C:2012:459, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).