(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret)

(Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature – Chairmats)

Summary of the Judgment

Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Chairmats – Classification in subheading 3918 10 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, concerning floor coverings and more specific than that concerning furniture

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulations Nos 1734/96, 2086/97, 2261/98 and 2204/99, must be construed as meaning that, in a dispute in which the parties disagree as to whether chairmats made of plastic of various shapes, specially designed to be placed on the floor beneath office chairs on wheels to facilitate their movement while also protecting the floor covering, come under subheading 3918 10 90 or subheading 9403 70 90, classification under the former subheading is to be preferred.

(see para. 26, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 7 October 2004(1)

(Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature – Chairmats)

In Case C-379/02, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by order of 15 October 2002, received at the Court on 21 October 2002, in the proceedings

Imexpo Trading A/S,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges,

Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 15 July 2004, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Waltham Abbey Residents Association, by J. Devlin, Senior Counsel, J. Kenny, Barrister-at-Law, and D. Healy, Solicitor,

– An Bord Pleanála, by. B. Foley, Senior Counsel, A. Carroll, Barrister-at-Law, and P. Reilly, Solicitor,

– Ireland, by M. Browne, Chief State Solicitor, S. Finnegan, K. Hoare and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by D. McGrath, Senior Counsel, F. Valentine, Senior Counsel, and E. O’Callaghan, Barrister-at-Law,

– the European Commission, by M. Noll-Ehlers and N. Ruiz García, acting as Agents,

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

gives the following

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

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. …

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

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.’

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:

…

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:

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

Subject to Article 2(4), for projects listed in Annex II, Member States shall determine whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States shall make that determination through:

a case-by-case examination;

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:

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

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:

A description of the project, including in particular:

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

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

A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the project.

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:

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

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

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

The criteria of Annex III shall be taken into account, where relevant, when compiling the information in accordance with points 1 to 3.’

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

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)]

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:

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

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

deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

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

15

Neither the Danish Government nor the Commission objected to that procedure. However, by letter of 16 April 2004, Imexpo put forward certain arguments which led the Court to abandon the simplified procedure.

The question referred by the national court

16

16The decisive criterion for the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be sought generally in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the wording of the headings and in the notes to the sections or chapters, and in accordance with the general rules on interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in so far as they are not inconsistent with the headings and notes. In addition, the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes are, as such, useful aids to the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (see, inter alia, Case C-11/93 Siemens Nixdorf [1994] ECR I-1945, paragraphs 11 and 12).

17

17In the present case, plastic chairmats such as those at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as floor coverings. They are, in fact, carpets of various shapes, one purpose of which is to protect floor coverings. First, the customary meaning of the word ‘covering’ is something that covers something else to protect or strengthen it and, second, a covering which covers a floor covering must itself be regarded as a floor covering. The wording of Chapter 57 of the Combined Nomenclature, entitled ‘carpets and other textile floor coverings’, as well as the analogous wording of several headings in that chapter confirms that a carpet must, in principle, be regarded as a floor covering.

18

18To be classified under heading 3918, a plastic floor covering must also come in rolls or in the form of tiles. That is clear from the very wording of the first part of the heading, ‘floor coverings of plastics, whether or not self-adhesive, in rolls or in the form of tiles …’, and is confirmed by the first part of the Harmonised System Explanatory Note relating to that heading, which states: ‘the first part of the heading covers plastics of the types normally used as floor coverings, in rolls or in the form of tiles. It should be noted that self-adhesive floor coverings are classified in this heading’.

19

19The parties agree that mats such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not come in rolls. However, in their observations submitted to the Court, the parties to the main proceedings and the Commission do not agree as to whether the chairmats take the form of tiles. The Commission takes the view that they are, in fact, plastic sheets. However, tiles, according to the customary meaning of the word, are a specific type of sheet, designed to cover a surface. Imexpo submits that tiles are generally designed to cover a surface, together with other such units, and that once put in place the resulting covering cannot, in principle, be dislodged, which does not hold true for chairmats. Nevertheless, while that use is doubtless one of the most common for that type of product, a tile does not lose its essential quality if it is placed, alone, on the surface which it is to protect or decorate and if it is not affixed to that surface in a lasting way. Given its dimensions, a chairmat is thus comparable to a tile, that is to say, it is a sheet intended for placement on a surface, in this case the area covered by the normal movement of the office chair on wheels with which it is used.

20The products at issue are therefore covered by the wording ‘floor coverings of plastics, whether or not self-adhesive, in rolls or in the form of tiles …’ used in heading 3918 of the Combined Nomenclature.

21

21When classifying a product according to the Combined Nomenclature, where a product meets the definition given in a heading the question may nevertheless arise whether it also meets the definition in another heading which more specifically applies to it or which, at the very least, describes it just as well. In particular, if that is so, the national court, in a case such as the one in the main proceedings, must decide whether it would be more appropriate to classify the product under a heading other than heading No 3918, either in the light of the notes to Chapter 39, or in the light of general rule 3, cited in paragraph 8 of this judgment.

22

22In the present case, Imexpo submits that the chairmats it imports come under subheading 9403 70 90 which covers certain furniture made of plastics. If that is the case, subheading 9403 should be preferred over subheading 3918 because note 2(u) to Chapter 39 states: ‘This chapter does not cover … articles of Chapter 94 (for example, furniture …)’. Pursuant to general rule 1 on the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, that note prevails over general rule 3(a), which provides that the most specific heading must be preferred to headings providing a more general description.

23

23The question is thus whether plastic chairmats can in fact be regarded as furniture within the meaning of Chapter 94. Therefore, as there are no express terms in the headings and subheadings of and notes to Chapter 94 classifying those products as furniture, or, conversely, excluding them from Chapter 94, account must be taken of the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes, and, where relevant, the Combined Nomenclature Explanatory Notes (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 69/76 and 70/76 Dittmeyer [1977] ECR 231, paragraph 4, and Case C-270/96 Laboratoires Sarget [1998] ECR I-1121, paragraph 16).

24

24The general notes of the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes to Chapter 94 state: ‘For the purposes of this chapter, the term “furniture” means Any “movable” articles (not included under other more specific headings of the Nomenclature) which have the essential characteristic that they are constructed for placing on the floor … and which are used, mainly with a utilitarian purpose, to equip private dwellings … offices …’

25

25In the light of those instructions, although plastic chairmats such as those at issue in the main proceedings are indeed designed for placing on the floor and are used to equip various types of premises, it is clear that heading 3918, which covers ‘floor coverings of plastics, whether or not self-adhesive, in rolls or in the form of tiles …’, more specifically describes the products in question than heading 9403, entitled ‘other furniture and parts thereof’, which covers a very wide variety of furniture. Therefore, those products cannot be classified as ‘furniture of plastics’ as referred to in subheading 9403 70 90.

26

26The answer to the question referred must therefore be that the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 as amended by Regulations Nos 1734/96, 2086/97, 2261/98 and 2204/99 must be construed as meaning that in a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, in which the parties disagree as to whether plastic chairmats such as those at issue in the main proceedings come under subheading 3918 10 90 or subheading 9403 70 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, classification under the former subheading is to be preferred.

Costs

27

27Since 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) rules as follows:

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 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/99 of 12 October 1999 must be construed as meaning that in a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, in which the parties disagree as to whether plastic chairmats such as those at issue in the main proceedings come under subheading 3918 10 90 or subheading 9403 70 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, classification under the former subheading is to be preferred.

Signatures.

* * *

(1) Language of the case: Danish.