(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf)

(Tariff classification – Hand-operated spanners and wrenches and interchangeable spanner sockets)

Summary of the Judgment

(Art. 234 EC)

1.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 Combined Nomenclature, rather than to effect that classification itself, a fortiori 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 para. 23)

2.Heading 8204 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 2388/2000, is to be interpreted as not covering separately imported screwdriver bits with square drive for slotted-head, cross-head, TX (internal Torx) and Allen screws. By contrast, the same heading is to be interpreted as covering separately imported parts of the square system which are not in direct contact with the fastener during use and also separately imported square-system torque meter wrenches.

(see paras 28, 33, 37, operative part 1-3)

16 February 2006 (*)

(Tariff classification – Hand-operated spanners and wrenches and interchangeable spanner sockets)

In Case C-500/04,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), made by decision of 29 November 2004, received at the Court on 2 December 2004, in the proceedings

Oberfinanzdirektion Köln,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet, Judges,

Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,

Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 29 September 2005,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Proxxon GmbH, by D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt,

– the Luxembourg Government, by S. Schreiner and J.-C. Nilles, acting as Agents,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by J. Hottiaux and B. Schima, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

1.1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of heading 8204 of the Combined Nomenclature (hereinafter ‘the CN’) 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 (OJ 2000 L 264, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2000 L 276, p. 92).

2.2 The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Proxxon GmbH (hereinafter ‘Proxxon’), established in Germany, and the Oberfinanzdirektion Köln (Principal Revenue Office, Cologne) regarding the classification in the CN of various hand-operated screwing tools, namely spanners and wrenches, spanner and wrench bits and screwdriver bits.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

3 Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

4 Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

3. A description of any likely significant effects, to the extent of the information available on such effects, of the project on the environment resulting from:

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

19Proxxon submits that the goods referred to in the first question must be classified under heading 8204 of the CN. It contests the categorisation, upheld by the national court, of its goods as ‘screwdriver bits’. According to Proxxon, the spanner and wrench bits and screwdriver ends at issue in the main proceedings have to be classified on the basis of the fact that they are known as ‘female’ (that is to say, they grip the fastener) or ‘male’ (that is to say, they are inserted into the fastener). Proxxon submits that heading 8204 of the NC does not make a distinction between the items concerned according to whether the bits grip the fastener or are inserted into it. Proxxon also considers that the specific feature of the goods at issue in the main proceedings lies in their interchangeability, because of the possibility of fitting together the spanners and wrenches, and the ‘male’ and ‘female’ spanner and wrench bits or screwdriver ends. Furthermore, all the tools at issue in the main proceedings have the same intended use – which is an objective criterion of tariff classification – namely tightening or slackening threaded screws with different types of screw head, with the aid of a matching set of hand-operated screwing tools. Lastly, Proxxon submits that subheading 8207 90 30 of the CN relates only to interchangeable screwdriver bits, which are used in particular in simple hand-operated tools such as those described in heading 8205, whilst heading 8204 concerns ‘tools utilising spanners and wrenches’.

20The Commission of the European Communities submits that the goods referred to in the first question have to be classified under heading 8207 of the CN. They were described by the national court as ‘screwdriver bits’. Subheading 8207 90 30 of the CN deals specifically with ‘screwdriver bits’. Furthermore, the Commission considers that, in the light of that specific subheading, making the classification of the goods at issue in the main proceedings dependent on the classification of the tool in which they are used is, in the end, at variance with the objective which the creation of that subheading seeks to attain.

Reply of the Court

21According to settled case-law, 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 found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see, inter alia, Case C-42/99 Eru Portuguesa [2000] ECR I-7691, paragraph 13; Case C-495/03 Intermodal Transports [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 47; and Case C-445/04 Possehl Erzkontor [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19).

22The explanatory notes to the CN and those to the HS are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force. The content of those notes must therefore be compatible with the provisions of the CN and may not alter the meaning of those provisions (Intermodal Transports, paragraph 48, and Possehl Erzkontor, paragraph 20).

23When 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, a fortiori 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 (Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00 Lohman and Medi Bayreuth [2002] ECR I-10045, paragraph 26).

24The procedure for referring questions for a preliminary ruling which is provided for in Article 234 EC establishes a relationship of close cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice based on the assignment to each of different functions (Case C-236/98 JämO [2000] ECR I-2189, paragraph 30) and constitutes an instrument by means of which the Court provides the national courts with interpretation of such Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate (Monte Arcosu, paragraph 21, and Lohman and Medi Bayreuth, paragraph 27).

25In the case in the main proceedings, the national court described the goods at issue as ‘screwdriver bits’. That description is the consequence of a simple finding of fact which it is not for the Court to call into question in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling. Furthermore, it is enough to observe that the national court is not asking the Court to rule on the description of the screwdriver ends as it restricts itself to referring a question about their tariff classification.

26According to the general rules, the heading which provides the most specific description is to be preferred to headings providing a more general description (Possehl Erzkontor, paragraph 21). In this respect, note 2 to Chapter 82 of the CN provides that parts of base metal of the articles of that chapter are to be classified with the articles of which they are parts, except parts separately specified as such.

27As the Commission points out, it is clear that subheading 8207 90 30 of the CN specifically refers to ‘screwdriver bits’. Furthermore, as such bits are always used in other tools, making their classification dependent on that of those tools is at variance with the objective which the creation of a specific subheading seeks to attain. Such a solution effectively renders subheading 8207 90 30 of the CN completely redundant.

28In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that heading 8204 of the CN is to be interpreted as not covering separately imported screwdriver ends with square drive for slotted-head, cross-head, TX (internal Torx) and hexagon socket head screws, as described in the order for reference.

The second question

Observations submitted to the Court

29Proxxon submits that the parts of the square system, as described in more detail in the order, fall within heading 8204 of the CN. The question as to whether the connecting pieces are in direct contact with the screws or nuts cannot constitute an objective differentiating characteristic or therefore a criterion for tariff classification. Furthermore, those connecting pieces, even separately imported, form parts of a system and can be used only in connection with it. Lastly, they are not mentioned in any other heading in Chapter 82 of the CN.

30The Commission, like Proxxon, considers that the goods referred to in the second question fall within heading 8204 of the CN. Given the function of those connecting pieces (as components of the square system and in so far as they are capable of holding different bits), a classification of those goods as screwdriver bits within the meaning of heading 8207 of the CN should not be accepted. Furthermore, those goods are capable of holding spanner sockets which are, themselves, expressly referred to in heading 8204 of the CN. Lastly, referring to note 2 to Chapter 82 of the CN, the Commission points out that parts of the articles in that chapter are to be classified with the articles of which they are parts.

Reply of the Court

31It must be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s case-law, the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion in relation to tariff classification if it is inherent in the product, and such inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (see, inter alia, Case C-201/99 Deutsche Nichimen [2001] ECR I-2701, paragraph 20; Case C-130/02 Krings [2004] ECR I-2121, paragraph 30; and Case C-467/03 Ikegami [2005] ECR I-2389, paragraph 23).

32As has been observed by Proxxon and the Commission, the parts of the square system, described in the order for reference, come within the scope of heading 8204 of the CN. Those parts are capable of holding spanner sockets; the latter, with or without handles, are expressly referred to by that heading. Furthermore, in accordance with note 2 to Chapter 82 of the CN, ‘parts of base metal of the articles of this chapter are to be classified with the articles of which they are parts’, which means that a connecting piece situated between the handle or the driver and a spanner socket has to be classified in the same way as the spanner socket itself.

33In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question referred must be that heading 8204 of the CN is to be interpreted as covering separately imported parts of the square system, as described in the order for reference, which are not in direct contact with the fastener during use.

The third question

Observations submitted to the Court

34Proxxon, the Commission and the Luxembourg Government submit that torque meter wrenches fall within heading 8204 of the CN since that heading expressly refers to that type of tool.

Reply of the Court

35It is clear that heading 8204 of the CN expressly mentions torque meter wrenches.

36As the Commission points out – in drawing attention to the finding made by the national court – torque meter wrenches are characterised by their ability to hold bits of different kinds, including screwdriver bits. Furthermore, nothing precludes the concept of torque meter wrench mentioned under heading 8204 of the CN from also covering goods which are normally so designated in trade if those goods have the objective characteristic of being capable of holding interchangeable tools and they are used to facilitate the process of screwing.

37In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question must be that heading 8204 of the CN is to be interpreted as covering separately imported square-system torque meter wrenches of the type described in the order for reference.

Costs

38Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:

3. Heading 8204 of the Combined Nomenclature is to be interpreted as covering separately imported square-system torque meter wrenches of the type described in the order for reference.

[Signatures]

*

Language of the case: German.