- 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-227/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 — Spinal fixation systems — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0227
62017CA0227
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
(Case C-227/17) (1)
‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 — Spinal fixation systems — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014)’
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Medtronic GmbH
Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss
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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that spinal fixation systems such as those at issue in the main proceedings may not be classified under subheading 9021 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature if they are covered by another subheading of heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature. Whether those systems may be classified under subheading 9021 10 10 or subheading 9021 10 90 of the Combined Nomenclature will depend on the principal function they perform, which is a matter for the referring court to determine by having regard to the objective characteristics and properties of such systems as well as to their intended and actual use.
(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.