- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-547/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0547
62013CN0547
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 377/8
(Case C-547/13)
2013/C 377/16
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’
Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Questions referred
1.Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings?
2.If headings 9018 and 9019 should not be applicable, may those goods be classified under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?
3.If the reply is negative, what other heading provides the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature for the purposes of classification?
(1) OJ L 256, 1, p. 1.