Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

3 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Heading 9021 – Orthopaedic appliances – Other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability – Robotic arm attached to an electric wheelchair )

In Case T‑313/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Fiscal Court, Hamburg, Germany), made by decision of 23 April 2025, received at the Court on 29 April 2025, in the proceedings

Kinova Europe GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt Hanover,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of S. Papasavvas, President, M. Sampol Pucurull, J. Laitenberger, M. Stancu (Rapporteur) and W. Valasidis, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares,

Registrar: P. Cullen, Administrator,

having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 20 May 2025, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,

having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 50b of that statute,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 22 January 2026,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Kinova Europe, by D. Bell, H.-H. von Cölln, S. Dahlhoff, lawyers, and F.-P. Ziegler, tax adviser,

–        the European Commission, by A. Demeneix and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, and by H. Ketolainen, acting as an expert,

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

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of heading 9021 of 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 (OJ 2019 L 280, p. 1) (‘the CN’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between Kinova Europe GmbH and the Hauptzollamt Hannover (Principal Customs Office, Hanover, Germany) concerning the tariff classification of a robotic arm attached to an electric wheelchair.

 Legal context

 International law

3        The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (‘the HS’) was drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council, now the World Customs Organization (WCO). It was established by the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, done at Brussels on 14 June 1983 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 3; ‘the HS Convention’), approved, with its Protocol of Amendment of 24 June 1986, on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1).

4        Under Article 3(1)(a) of the HS Convention, each contracting party undertakes that its customs tariff and statistical nomenclatures will be in conformity with the HS, to use all the headings and subheadings of the HS without addition or modification, together with their related numerical codes, and to follow the numerical sequence of the HS. That provision also requires the contracting parties to apply the General Rules for the interpretation of the HS and all the section, chapter and subheading notes of the HS, and not to modify the scope of the sections, chapters, headings or subheadings of the HS.

5        The WCO approves, under the conditions laid down in Article 8 of the HS Convention, the Explanatory Notes and Classification Opinions adopted by the HS Committee.

6        Point I of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 9021 of that system, entitled ‘Orthopaedic appliances’, contains the following passage:

‘… Orthopaedic appliances … are appliances for:

–        preventing or correcting bodily deformities; or

–        supporting or holding parts of the body following an illness, operation or injury.’

7        Under point V of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 9021 of that system, the group of ‘Other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’ includes:

‘(1)      Speech aids for persons having lost the use of their vocal cords as a result of an injury or a surgical operation. … When pressed against the neck, for example, they generate vibrations in the cavities of the throat which are modulated by the user to produce audible speech.

(2)      Pacemakers for stimulating defective heart muscles. These … are implanted beneath the skin of the patient’s chest. …

(3)      Electronic aids for the blind. …

(4)      Appliances implanted in the body, used to support or replace the chemical function of certain organs (e.g., secretion of insulin).’

 European Union law

 CN

8        Part One of the CN contains a series of preliminary provisions. In that part, under Section I, entitled ‘General rules’, point A of that section, concerning general rules for the interpretation of the CN, provides:

‘Classification of goods in the [CN] shall be governed by the following principles:

1.      The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes …

…’

9        Heading 9021 in Chapter 90 of the CN, entitled ‘Optical, photographic, cinematographic, measuring, checking, precision, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus; parts and accessories thereof’, is structured as follows:

10      Note 6 to Chapter 90 of the CN is worded as follows:

‘For the purposes of heading 9021, the expression ‘orthopaedic appliances’ means appliances for:

–        preventing or correcting bodily deformities; or

–        supporting or holding parts of the body following an illness, operation or injury.

…’

 Explanatory Notes to the CN

11      As regards heading 9021 of the CN, the Explanatory Notes to the [CN] of the European Union (OJ 2019 C 119, p. 1; ‘the Explanatory Notes to the CN’), drawn up by the European Commission pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 2658/87, state:

‘For the purposes of this heading, the expression “to compensate for a defect or disability” means only appliances which actually take over or substitute for the function of the defective or disabled part of the body.

This heading does not include appliances which simply alleviate the effects of the defect or disability.

…’

12      As regards subheading 9021 10 10 of the CN, entitled ‘Orthopaedic appliances’, the Explanatory Notes to the CN state:

‘This subheading includes ‘orthopaedic appliances’ which are specially designed for a particular orthopaedic purpose, in distinction to ordinary products that might be used for different purposes (for example, products for overstrained joints, ligaments or tendons caused by sporting activities, type writing, and products which simply alleviate pain in the defective or disabled part of the body, for example, caused by inflammation).

The ‘orthopaedic appliances’ must completely prevent a specific movement of the defective or disabled part of the body (for example, joints, ligaments or tendons) in order to exclude further injuries or (an aggravation of) certain bodily deformities, as distinct from ordinary products that allow undesired movements, yet avoid reflex movements (i.e. movements carried out subconsciously) through their relative inflexibility caused by, for example, flexible splints, pressure pads, non-elastic textile materials or restrictions through ‘Velcro-type’ straps.

…’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

13      On 11 May 2020, the applicant in the main proceedings requested the Principal Customs Office, Hanover, to issue a binding tariff information in respect of a robotic assistance arm attached to an electric wheelchair.

14      It is apparent from the order for reference that the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings is a technical device with a design consisting of six motor-driven joints, a ‘hand’ with two or three motor-driven ‘fingers’ and a base with external ports, in particular for control, USB and power connection. That robotic arm is fixed to an electric wheelchair and can be operated by means of a joystick or a head control in order to perform movements imitating the movements of a human arm to handle certain objects. It is used by persons suffering from a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms due to tetraplegia or advanced myopathy.

15      By its binding tariff information decision dated 1 October 2020, the Principal Customs Office, Hanover, classified the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings under subheading 8479 89 97 of the CN, corresponding to machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84, and not to a product under subheadings 8479 10 00 to 8479 89 70 (functional unit).

16      The applicant in the main proceedings lodged a complaint against that decision of the Principal Customs Office, Hanover, taking the view, in essence, that the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings constituted a prosthetic article and, on that basis, fell within subheading 9021 39 90 of the CN.

17      By its decision dated 10 May 2023, the Principal Customs Office, Hanover, rejected that complaint on the ground that prosthetic articles included only products intended to replace, in whole or in part, a defective part of the body, whereas the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings did not replace the natural arm with an artificial arm, but rather constituted a technical assistance device for patients whose arms, by reason of a pathology, no longer functioned or had only limited functionality. Consequently, that customs office took the view that that robotic arm did not constitute a prosthetic article and did not fall within subheading 9021 39 90 of the CN.

18      On 15 June 2023, the applicant in the main proceedings brought an action against the decision dated 10 May 2023 of the Principal Customs Office, Hanover, before the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Fiscal Court, Hamburg, Germany), which is the referring court. In that action, it argues, in essence, that the concept of ‘prosthetic article’ does not imply that part of the body is actually replaced, but only that the prosthetic article replaces the lost function of a body part. In that regard, the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings could be used both by persons who are missing an entire arm or hand or part thereof since birth or due to an accident, amputation or illness, and by persons who have severely reduced mobility in the arms and/or hands. That robotic arm is intended to replace the human arm. In addition, the fact that the person concerned does not wear the robotic arm directly on their body does not preclude that product being classified under subheading CN 9021 39 90. What is decisive is that that arm is connected to the body by means of new technologies.

19      In the first place, the referring court is of the view that the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings could be regarded as an ‘orthopaedic appliance’ within the meaning of heading 9021 of the CN. The function of the robotic arm is to correct a person’s deformity in his or her body or physical defect affecting that person with the result that that person is, with the aid of the robotic arm, able independently to perform everyday arm or hand activities.

20      However, it is apparent from national case-law that an appliance can be used to correct deformities or defects only when it contributes to restoring one or more affected parts of the body to a healthy state. The robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings does not contribute to restoring a person’s deformed or deficient limb to a healthy state, but constitutes an assistance system in the form of a manipulatory arm. The referring court observes, however, that crutches are expressly referred to as ‘orthopaedic appliances’ under heading 9021 of the CN, even though they do not correct deformity or defect.

21      In the second place, if the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as an ‘orthopaedic appliance’ within the meaning of heading 9021 of the CN, the referring court asks whether that robotic arm could be regarded as being an ‘other applianc[e] which [is] worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’, as referred to under that heading.

22      The referring court takes the view that, like crutches or walker-rollators under heading 9021 of the CN, the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings compensates for a defect or disability which consists, for the person concerned, in not having functioning limbs or in being unable to use his or her limbs with the result that that robotic arm takes over or replaces the function of the parts of the arms or hands which are damaged, missing or cannot be used.

23      However, the question arises whether the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings is an appliance which is worn on the body. According to the first interpretation, that robotic arm is not directly linked to the body of the person concerned and is not directly attached to that person. In that regard, the referring court asks whether, for the purposes of interpreting heading 9021 of the CN, it is decisive that the appliance is attached to the body of the person concerned in a specific way, that is to say, that the person concerned carries the appliance with him or her.

24      According to a second interpretation, it is possible to conclude that a direct link with the body is not necessary and that a connecting element enabling the person concerned to be linked to the appliance is sufficient. Specifically, a person who has a defect or disability is, on account of his or her disability, linked or connected to the wheelchair, which at the same time constitutes the element connecting that person and the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings. Therefore, the robotic arm is linked to the body and forms a functional unit with it, via the wheelchair. On the basis of that interpretation, the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings could be regarded as an ‘other applianc[e] which[is] worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’, as referred to under heading 9021 of the CN.

25      In those circumstances, the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Fscal Court, Hamburg) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Is the expression ‘orthopaedic appliances’ contained in heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature (‘CN’) to be interpreted as covering also a robotic arm attached to a wheelchair that enables the person reliant on that wheelchair to take over the functions of a natural arm and/or a natural hand?

(2)      If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the expression ‘other appliances … to compensate for a defect or disability’ contained in CN heading 9021 to be interpreted as covering also a robotic arm attached to a wheelchair that enables the person reliant on that wheelchair to take over the functions of a natural arm and/or a natural hand?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

26      By its questions, which will be examined together, the referring court is, in essence, asking whether heading 9021 of the CN must be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘orthopaedic appliances’ and ‘other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’, referred to by that heading, cover a robotic arm attached to an electric wheelchair which is operated by means of a joystick or a head control in order to perform movements imitating the movements of a human arm to handle certain objects.

27      As a preliminary point, it must be noted that, when the EU Courts are 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 national court to classify the products concerned correctly in the CN rather than to effect such a classification themselves. That classification results from a purely factual assessment which it is not for the EU Courts to make in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (see judgment of 8 May 2025, Prisum Healthcare, C‑252/24, EU:C:2025:339, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

28      It should also be noted that, in accordance with general rule No 1 for the interpretation of the CN, the tariff classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes to that nomenclature. In the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of those goods is, in general, to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and in the corresponding section or chapter notes. The intended use of the product concerned may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to that product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (see judgment of 8 May 2025, Prisum Healthcare, C‑252/24, EU:C:2025:339, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

29      Furthermore, the Court of Justice has repeatedly held that, although the Explanatory Notes to the HS and CN do not have binding force, they are an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff and, as such, may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (see judgment of 8 May 2025, Prisum Healthcare, C‑252/24, EU:C:2025:339, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

30      Heading 9021 of the CN concerns ‘orthopaedic appliances, including crutches, surgical belts and trusses; splints and other fracture appliances; artificial parts of the body; hearing aids and other appliances which are worn or carried or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’.

31      In the present case, the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings is not expressly referred to either in the wording of heading 9021 of the CN, or in the wording of the notes to Chapter 90 of the CN, or by the Explanatory Notes to the CN.

32      It is therefore necessary to examine whether, in the light of the objective characteristics and properties of that robotic arm as described by the referring court, it may be concluded that it reflects the characteristics of the goods referred to by heading 9021 of the CN.

33      As regards the objective characteristics and properties of a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the order for reference that that arm is a technical device with a design consisting of six motor-driven joints, a ‘hand’ with two or three motor-driven ‘fingers’ and a base with external ports, in particular for control, USB and power connection, which is attached to an electric wheelchair and which can be operated by means of a joystick or head control by persons with a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms, in order to perform movements imitating the movements of a human arm to handle certain objects.

34      As regards, in the first place, ‘orthopaedic appliances, including crutches’, as referred to in heading 9021 of the CN, it is apparent both from point I of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 9021 of that system and from Note 6 to Chapter 90 of the CN that those orthopaedic appliances are, in particular, appliances which are for ‘preventing or correcting bodily deformities’. In that regard, the referring court has doubts specifically as to whether the function of the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings is to correct a deformity in the body or physical defect of the person concerned.

35      In the present case, it should be noted that the objective characteristics and properties of a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings do not match those of ‘orthopaedic appliances’ as defined by the wording of heading 9021 of the CN, of point I of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 9021 of that system or of Note 6 to Chapter 90 of the CN.

36      First, it is apparent from the objective characteristics and properties of a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as described in the order for reference and summarised in paragraph 33 above, that its main function is as a technical device operated by means of a joystick or a head control in order to perform movements imitating the movements of a human arm to handle certain objects.

37      While a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings may also be operated by persons with a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms and, therefore, unquestionably improves the quality of life of those persons, it does not appear that its main function, which is to be used as a technical device operated by means of a joystick or a head control in order to perform movements imitating the movements of a human arm to handle certain objects, makes it possible to correct a defect or disability within the meaning of heading 9021 of the CN, in the present case that of immobile or missing arms, but simply to alleviate the effects of such a defect or disability.

38      Second, the Explanatory Notes to the CN state, in relation to subheading 9021 10 10, that ‘orthopaedic appliances’ must completely prevent a specific movement of the defective or disabled part of the body (for example, joints, ligaments or tendons) in order to exclude further injuries or an aggravation of certain bodily deformities.

39      However, it must be stated that a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not appear to reflect such characteristics, since, as stated in paragraph 33 above, it appears that such a robotic arm may be operated, inter alia, by means of a joystick, with the result that it does not completely prevent a specific movement of the defective or disabled arm but may, on the contrary, require such a movement.

40      Third, such an observation is not precluded by the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to heading 9021 of the CN, which state that those appliances must ‘actually take over or substitute for the function of the defective or disabled part of the body’ and not ‘simply alleviate the effects of the defect or disability’.

41      In that regard, it must be observed that the adverb ‘actually’ in the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to heading 9021 suggests that, in order for it to fall within heading 9021 of the CN, a product must completely take over or substitute for the function of the defective or disabled body part.

42      In the present case, as is apparent from the objective characteristics and properties of a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as described in the order for reference and summarised in paragraph 33 above, that arm is attached to an electric wheelchair and operated by means of a joystick or a head control. It is used as a technical assistance device by persons suffering from a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms, who may direct that device by means of that joystick or head control in order to perform movements imitating the movement of a human arm to handle certain objects. Accordingly, it does not appear that such a robotic arm actually takes over or substitutes for the function of the defective or disabled part of the body within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to heading 9021 of the CN, in the present case, arms which are not mobile or are missing, but rather that it is used solely to alleviate the effects of a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms.

43      Fourth, as regards the essential intended use of orthopaedic appliances, it follows from the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to heading 9021 of the CN that those appliances refer to products which are specially designed for a particular orthopaedic purpose, in distinction to ordinary products that might be used for different purposes.

44      In that regard, the Court of Justice has already held that the criteria for distinguishing simple or ordinary products from those serving a medical purpose include the method of manufacture of the product concerned, the nature of the materials of which it is made, the adjustability to the handicaps which it is intended to correct or other special characteristics, in particular the specificity of its purpose (judgment of 7 November 2002, Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth, C‑260/00 to C‑263/00, EU:C:2002:637, paragraph 39).

45      In addition, the Court of Justice has also held that articles coming under heading 9021 of the CN had in common that they were specially adapted to the handicaps which they were intended to correct, and were specifically designed for a given person (judgment of 24 March 1994, 3M Medica, C‑148/93, EU:C:1994:123, paragraph 12).

46      In the present case, having regard to the objective characteristics and properties of the robotic arm at issue in the main proceedings, as described in the order for reference and summarised in paragraph 33 above, and taking into account the fact that that robotic arm does not make it possible to correct certain bodily deformities, namely not having functioning arms or being unable to use the arms, in accordance with Note No 6 to Chapter 90 of the CN, it does not appear that that robotic arm was specifically designed for an orthopaedic purpose or for a given person, or that it is specifically adapted to a disability.

47      Fifth, as regards the comparison, made by the referring court, with crutches, which are expressly referred to in heading 9021 of the CN, and with walker-rollators, as ‘orthopaedic appliances’ within the meaning of that heading, the Court of Justice has held, first, that the main function of crutches is to compensate for a defect or disability of the lower limbs so that a person suffering from such a handicap is able, with the help of the crutches, to walk alone (judgment of 22 December 2010, Premis Medical, C‑273/09, EU:C:2010:809, paragraph 51).

48      The Court of Justice noted, second, that the main function of a walker-rollator was also to support a person when walking. Even though, unlike crutches, the walker-rollator involves the use of the two lower limbs, it compensates, in the same way as crutches, for a defect or disability consisting generally of an inability on the part of the person concerned to coordinate movement of the lower limbs whilst maintaining the balance which walking requires (judgment of 22 December 2010, Premis Medical, C‑273/09, EU:C:2010:809, paragraph 52).

49      It follows that a walker-rollator allows a person to compensate for a lack of the balance necessary to enable that person to walk alone. To the extent to which the ability to compensate for the lack of balance whilst walking is inherent in the act of walking itself, such a walker-rollator fulfils a function similar to that of crutches. In other words, a walker-rollator allows a person to be securely mobile on his or her own legs whereas, without that support, as without the support of crutches, that person, in the light of his or her state of health, could not be so mobile (judgment of 22 December 2010, Premis Medical, C‑273/09, EU:C:2010:809, paragraphs 53 and 54).

50      However, having regard to the objective characteristics and properties of a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as described in the order for reference and summarised in paragraph 33 above, such a robotic arm, which is used as a technical assistance device, has no effect on the ability of the person affected by a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms to perform everyday arm or hand activities which that person’s disability does not allow him or her to perform, which is similar to the effect that crutches and a walker-rollator falling within the scope of ‘orthopaedic appliances’ as referred to in heading 9021 of the CN have on the person’s ability, alone, to be securely mobile, on his or her own legs, to compensate for a defect or disability affecting that person.

51      It follows that a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot fall within the scope of ‘orthopaedic appliances’ as referred to in heading 9021 of the CN.

52      In the second place, as has been stated in paragraphs 40 and 41 above, as regards ‘other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’, it is apparent from the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to heading 9021 of the CN that ‘to compensate for a defect or disability’, as referred to in that heading, refers solely to appliances which actually take over or substitute for the function of the defective or disabled part of the body. Appliances which simply alleviate the effects of the defect or disability are however excluded from that heading.

53      In that regard, first, as is apparent from paragraph 42 above, it does not appear that a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings actually takes over or substitutes for the function of the defective or disabled part of the body as referred to in the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to heading 9021 of the CN, in the present case arms which are not mobile or are missing, but rather that it is used only to alleviate the effects of a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms.

54      Second, it should be noted that it is apparent from the wording of heading 9021 of the CN that what is characteristic of the appliances listed in that heading is the fact that they are worn, carried on the person or implanted in the body.

55      In that regard, it is apparent from point V of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 9021 thereof that that heading covers, inter alia, ‘Speech aids for persons having lost the use of their vocal cords as a result of an injury or a surgical operation’, ‘pacemakers for stimulating defective heart muscles’, ‘electronic aids for the blind’ and ‘appliances implanted in the body, used to support or replace the chemical function of certain organs’.

56      It follows from the foregoing that products which are capable of being implanted in the body, which are worn or which are attached directly to the body of the person concerned in order to replace a disabled part of the body or to take over its function are to be classified under heading 9021 of the CN, which, consequently, distinguishes them from ordinary products.

57      In the present case, it is apparent from the description found in the order for reference and summarised in paragraph 33 above that a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings is attached to an electric wheelchair and operated by means of a joystick or a head control. Such a robotic arm is therefore not directly linked to the body of the person concerned, since it is neither worn, nor carried on the person, nor implanted in the body. As the Commission stated, in essence, in its written observations, such a robotic arm, attached to an electric wheelchair and not to the body of the person affected by a defect or disability characterised by not having functioning arms or by being unable to use the arms, does not have a sufficient direct and lasting physical link with the body of the person concerned.

58      Nor can, moreover, such a direct and lasting physical link be established by a joystick or a head control. The contact with the body of the person concerned thereby established is momentary and is limited to the time necessary to carry out the command in order to operate a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

59      It follows that a robotic arm such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot fall within the category of ‘other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’, as referred to in heading 9021 of the CN.

60      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred is that heading 9021 of the CN must be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘orthopaedic appliances’ and ‘other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’, referred to by that heading, do not cover a robotic arm attached to an electric wheelchair which is operated by means of a joystick or a head control in order to perform movements imitating the movements of a human arm to handle certain objects.

 Costs

61      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring 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 GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

Heading 9021 of 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, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019,

must be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘orthopaedic appliances’ and ‘other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect or disability’, referred to by that heading, do not cover a robotic arm attached to an electric wheelchair which is operated by means of a joystick or a head control in order to perform movements imitating the movements of a human arm to handle certain objects.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 June 2026.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: German.