EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CN0547

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

OJ C 377, 21.12.2013, p. 8–8 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.12.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/8


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

(Case C-547/13)

2013/C 377/16

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams

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.


Top