Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/13

(Case C-168/23, Prysmian Cabluri și Sisteme)

(2023/C 278/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prysmian Cabluri și Sisteme SA

Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — Direcția Regională Vamală Craiova, Autoritatea Vamală Română, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Questions referred

1.When interpreting the [Combined Nomenclature] in Annex I to [Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87] (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, with reference to the Explanatory Notes to the [Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities], in the version in force since the date of the European Commission communication [on the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2007/C 296/02)], published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 8 December 2007, may a product consisting of an optical core and optical cladding, covered with a first soft inner acrylate coating and a second coloured hard outer acrylate sheathing, a sheathing system (known as ColorLock), be classified under heading 8544 70 00 of that nomenclature?

2.If the answer to the first question is in the negative, may the national customs authorities, when interpreting the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, disregard the existence of decisions of the customs authority of that State that have not brought the classification of that product under heading 8544 70 00 into question, and also of BTI decisions (guaranteeing exemption from customs duties and VAT) issued by other customs authorities or by courts of other Member States of the European Union in favour of such a tariff classification, without such conduct infringing the principles of uniform application of tariff classification under Article 28 [TFEU], read in conjunction with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations recognised by the [Court], relevant to the application of EU law?

3.If the answer to the second question is in the negative, when interpreting Article 114 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, (2) having regard to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, is it possible that a lack of clarity in the Explanatory Notes to the [Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities], in the version in force since the date of the Commission communication on the [Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the [European Communities] (2007/C 296/02) (OJ 2007 C 296, p. 4)], followed by a subsequent clarification which entered into force, imposes an additional tax liability on a taxpayer in a Member State, especially where, over time, decisions have been made by the customs authority of that State that have not brought the classification of that product under heading 8544 70 00 into question, and BTI decisions have also been issued by other customs authorities or by courts of other Member States of the European Union in favour of such a tariff classification?

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (recast) (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).