- 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-555/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — 2M-Locatel A/S v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90 — Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0555
62017CA0555
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
12.11.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 408/30
(Case C-555/17) (*)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90 - Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology))
(2018/C 408/39)
Language of the case: Danish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: 2M-Locatel A/S
Defendant: Skatteministeriet
Operative part of the judgment
The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology, such as the apparatus at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified under subheading 8528 71 90 thereof, provided that they do not incorporate a video tuner or a ‘television tuner’, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
(*) Language of the case: Danish.