| SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCA | Opinion of the Advocate-General |
| PAOLA MENGOZZIJA, | |
| predstavljeni 10. septembra 2008 ( 1 ) | |
| Zadeva C-376/07 | |
| Staatssecretaris van Financiën | |
| proti | |
| Kamino International Logistics BV | |
| „Skupna carinska tarifa — Kombinirana nomenklatura — Tarifna razvrstitev — Monitorji s tekočimi kristali (LCD), opremljeni z izhodi SUB-D, DVI-D, USB, S-video in kompozitni video — Tarifna številka 8471 — Tarifna številka 8528 — Uredba (ES) št. 754/2004“ | |
| I – Uvod | |
| 1. | Sodišče je v tem postopku pozvano, naj odgovori na tri vprašanja za predhodno odločanje predložitvenega sodišča Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (nizozemsko vrhovno sodišče) v zvezi z nekaterimi določbami kombinirane nomenklature. Nacionalno sodišče mora odločiti glede uvrstitve monitorja s tekočimi kristali (v nadaljevanju: LCD), ki ga je uvozila družba Kamino International Logistics BV (v nadaljevanju: Kamino): v teh okoliščinah je na Sodišče naslovilo prošnjo, naj razloži nekatere določbe nomenklature. | |
| II – Pravni okvir | |
| A – Določbe kombinirane nomenklature | |
| 2. | Za dejstva, ki so predmet spora o glavni stvari, se uporablja nomenklatura iz leta 2004, ki jo vsebuje Uredba Komisije št. 1789/2003 ( 2 ) (v nadaljevanju: KN 2004). | |
| 3. | V Oddelku 1 Prvega dela KN 2004, naslovljenem „Splošna pravila“, je določeno: | „[…] | Blago se v kombinirani nomenklaturi uvršča po naslednjih načelih: | 1. | Naslovi oddelkov, poglavij in podpoglavij so podani zato, da se je laže znajti pri uvrščanju; zaradi pravnih razlogov uvrščanje poteka po poimenovanjih tarifnih številk in opombah k ustreznim oddelkom ali poglavjem in po nadalje opisanih pravilih, če niso v nasprotju z vsebino teh tarifnih številk ali opomb. | […] | 3. | Proizvodi, ki bi jih bilo mogoče […] na prvi pogled uvrstiti pod dve ali več tarifnih številk, se uvrščajo takole: | (a) | tarifna številka, v kateri je najbolj konkretno ali najbolj natančno poimenovanje za proizvod, ima prednost pred tarifnimi številkami, v katerih je poimenovanje splošnejše. […] | (b) | mešanice, sestavljeni proizvodi, ki sestoje iz različnih materialov ali so izdelani iz različnih komponent oziroma sestavin, ter proizvodi, pripravljeni v kompletih za prodajo na drobno, ki se ne morejo uvrstiti po pravilu pod 3(a), se uvrstijo, kot da so iz materiala ali sestavine, ki jim daje bistven značaj, če je to merilo uporabno; | (c) | če blaga ni mogoče uvrstiti po pravilu pod 3(a) ali (b), se uvrsti pod tisto tarifno številko, ki je po zaporedju zadnja med tistimi, ki jih je treba enako upoštevati. | 4. | Blago, ki ga ni mogoče uvrstiti po pravilih, navedenih v točki 2 in 3, se uvrsti pod tarifno številko, predvideno za blago, ki je takemu blagu najbolj podobno.“ | |
| 4. | Oddelek XVI KN 2004 je naslovljen „Stroji in mehanske naprave; elektrotehniška oprema; njihovi deli; aparati za snemanje in reprodukcijo zvoka, aparati za snemanje in reprodukcijo televizijske slike in zvoka, deli in pribor za te proizvode“. Ta oddelek vsebuje Poglavje 84, naslovljeno „Jedrski reaktorji, kotli, stroji in mehanske naprave; njihovi deli“, in Poglavje 85, naslovljeno „Električni stroji in oprema ter njihovi deli; aparati za snemanje ali reprodukcijo slike in zvoka ter deli in pribor za te izdelke“. | |
| 5. | Poglavje 84 vsebuje te uvodne „Opombe“: | „[…] | 5. | […] | (B) | Stroji za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov (AOP) so lahko v obliki sistemov, ki so sestavljeni iz spremenljivega števila posameznih enot. Določbe, navedene v odstavku (E) spodaj, upoštevajo enoto kot del kompletnega sistema, če izpolnjuje vse spodaj naštete pogoje: | (a) | da so take vrste, da se samo ali zlasti uporablja v strojih za (AOP); | (b) | da jo je mogoče povezati s centralno enoto za obdelavo, neposredno ali po eni ali več drugih enotah; in | (c) | da je sposobna sprejeti ali dati podatke v obliki (šifre (kode) ali signala), ki je uporabna za sistem. | (C) | Ločeno predložene posamezne enote strojev za AOP se morajo uvrščati pod tar. št. 8471. | (D) | Tiskalniki, tipkovnice, koordinatne vhodne enote X-Y in diskovne pomnilniške enote, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, navedene v točkah (B)(b) in (B)(c) zgoraj, se v vseh primerih uvrščajo pod tar. št. 8471. | (E) | Stroji, drugačni od strojev za AOP, ki so konstruirani za opravljanje specifične funkcije, imajo pa vgrajen AOP ali pa delujejo v povezavi s stroji za AOP, se uvrščajo pod tarifno številko stroja, ki opravlja specifično funkcijo, ali, če to ni mogoče, pod preostale tarifne številke. | […]“ | |
| 6. | Poglavje 84 KN 2004 vsebuje med drugimi te tarifne številke: | „8471Računalniki – stroji za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov in njihove enote; magnetni ali optični čitalniki, stroji za prepisovanje podatkov na nosilce podatkov v kodirani obliki in stroji za obdelavo takih podatkov, ki niso navedeni in ne zajeti na drugem mestu: | […] | 847160Vhodne ali izhodne enote, vštevši tudi tiste, ki imajo ali nimajo v istem ohišju tudi pomnilniške enote: | […] | 84716090 | – – | drugo.“ | |
| 7. | Poglavje 85 KN 2004 pa vsebuje te tarifne številke: | „8528Televizijski sprejemniki, kombinirani ali nekombinirani v istem ohišju z radijskimi sprejemniki ali aparati za snemanje ali reprodukcijo zvoka ali slike; videomonitorji in videoprojektorji: | […] | — | Video monitorji: | 852821 | – – | barvni: | – – – | s katodno cevjo: | […] | 85282190 | – – – | drugi.“ | |
| B – Pojasnjevalne opombe harmoniziranega sistema | |
| 8. | Harmonizirani sistem, oblikovan v okviru Svetovne carinske organizacije, je bil izhodišče za izdelavo kombinirane nomenklature. ( 3 ) K harmoniziranemu sistemu so dodane pojasnjevalne opombe. V okviru pojasnjevalnih opomb k tarifni številki 8471, ki so veljale v času dejanskega stanja v sporu o glavni stvari, je navedeno: | „Med enote, ki so del [sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov], spadajo zasloni za stroje za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov, ki grafično prikazujejo obdelane podatke. Od video monitorjev in televizijskih sprejemnikov iz tarifne številke 85.28 se razlikujejo po več lastnostih, med katerimi so: | 1. | zasloni za stroje za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov lahko sprejemajo signal le iz centralne enote stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov, zato ne morejo prikazovati barvne slike iz kompozitnega video signala z valovno obliko, ki ustreza standardom oddajanja slike (NTSC, SECAM, PAL, D-MAC itd.) Opremljeni so s konektorji, značilnimi za sisteme za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov (na primer z vmesnikom RS-232 ali s priključki DIN ali SUB-D), in nimajo vhodnih in izhodnih avdio priključkov. […] | 2. | Za te zaslone je značilna nizka stopnja elektromagnetnega sevanja. Velikost točke znaša od 0,41 mm za srednjo stopnjo ločljivosti, z večanjem ločljivosti pa se postopno manjša. | 3. | Zasloni, uvrščeni v to tarifno številko, uporabljajo – zato da lahko prikazujejo majhne slike, a z dobro ločljivostjo – manjše točke (pixel) in boljše konvergenčne standarde kot video monitorji in televizijski sprejemniki iz tarifne številke 85.28 […]“ ( 4 ) | |
| C – Pojasnjevalne opombe KN | |
| 9. | V pojasnjevalnih opombah KN, ki jih je oblikovala Komisija in so veljale v času dejanskega stanja, ( 5 ) je v zvezi s tarifno podštevilko 84716090 določeno: | „Ta tarifna podštevilka zajema vizualne pokazalne enote (displeje), ki lahko služijo samo kot izhodne enote avtomatskih strojev za obdelavo podatkov. | Te enote ne morejo prikazovati slike na podlagi kodiranega (video) signala.“ | |
| D – Uredba št. 754/2004 | |
| 10. | V Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 754/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o uvrstitvi nekaterega blaga v kombinirano nomenklaturo ( 6 ) sta bila v tarifno številko 82582190 uvrščena dva proizvoda, opisana tako: | „1. | Barvni plazma zaslon z diagonalo 106 cm (celotne dimenzije 104 (Š) × 64,8 (V) × 9,5 (G) cm) s konfiguracijo 852 × 480 točk. | Proizvod ima naslednje vmesnike: | — | RGB konektor, | — | DVI konektor (digitalni vizualni vmesnik), | — | kontrolni konektor. | RGB konektor omogoča napravi prikazovanje podatkov neposredno s stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov. | DVI konektor omogoča napravi prikaz signalov s stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov ali iz drugega vira, kot je predvajalnik DVD ali predvajalnik video iger prek uglaševalca. | 2. | Barvni plazma zaslon z diagonalo 106 cm (celotne dimenzije 103 (Š) × 63,6 (V) × 9,5 (G) cm) s konfiguracijo 1024 × 1024 točk in s snemljivimi zvočniki. | Proizvod ima naslednje vmesnike: | — | DVI konektor (digitalni vizualni vmesnik), | — | kontrolni konektor. | DVI konektor omogoča napravi prikaz signalov s stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov ali iz drugega vira, kot je predvajalnik DVD ali predvajalnik video iger prek uglaševalca.“ | |
| 11. | Utemeljitev, navedena za to uvrstitev, ki je enaka za oba obravnavana proizvoda, je taka: | „Uvrstitev opredeljujejo določbe splošnih pravil 1 in 6 za razlago kombinirane nomenklature in besedilo oznak KN 8528, 852821 in 85282190. | Uvrstitev v podštevilko 847160 je izključena, ker se ta vrsta monitorja ne uporablja samo ali pretežno s strojem za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov (glej opombo 5 k poglavju 84). | Izdelka prav tako ni mogoče uvrstiti pod številko 8531, ker njegova funkcija ni vizualna indikacija za potrebe signaliziranja (glej HS pojasnjevalne opombe k številki 8531, točka D).“ | |
| III – Postopek v glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje | |
| 12. | Družba Kamino je avgusta 2004 uvozila pošiljko barvnih monitorjev, model BenQ FP231W, z naslednjimi lastnostmi: diagonalna izmera zaslona 23 palcev (58,42 cm), največja ločljivost 1920 x 1200 točk, razmerje med širino in višino 16:10, svetilnost 250 cd/m2, kontrast slike 500:1, 16,7 milijona barv, velikost točke 0,258 mm. Monitor je opremljen z izhodi D-sub (VGA), DVI-D, USB, S-video in kompozitni video, ter z avdio izhodom. ( 7 ) | |
| 13. | Nizozemski carinski organi so odločili, da je treba zadevni monitor uvrstiti v tarifno številko 85282190 KN 2004. Družba Kamino pa trdi, da spada obravnavani proizvod v tarifno številko 8471 KN 2004. | |
| 14. | Predložitveno sodišče, ki odloča o sporu na zadnji stopnji, je v teh okoliščinah prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vprašanja: | „1. | Ali je treba opombo 5 k Poglavju 84 KN v različici iz Priloge I k Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1789/2003 z dne 11. septembra 2003 razlagati tako, da je za barvni monitor, ki lahko reproducira signale tako iz stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov v smislu tarifne številke 8471 KN kot iz drugih virov, izključena možnost uvrstitve v tarifno številko 8471 KN? | 2. | Če možnost uvrstitve v tarifno številko 8471 KN monitorja iz vprašanja 1 ni izključena, na podlagi katerih okoliščin je mogoče ugotoviti, ali je navedeni monitor enota, ki se samo ali zlasti uporablja v sistemu avtomatske obdelave podatkov? | 3. | Ali spada sporni monitor na področje uporabe Uredbe Komisije (ES) 754/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o uvrstitvi nekaterih vrst blaga v kombinirano nomenklaturo, in – če je odgovor na to vprašanje pritrdilen – ali je glede na odgovora na prvi vprašanji ta uredba veljavna?“ | |
| IV – Prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje | |
| 15. | Predložitveno sodišče želi s prvim vprašanjem za predhodno odločanje izvedeti, ali je treba opombo 5 k Poglavju 84 KN 2004 razumeti tako, da izključuje možnost uvrstitve monitorja, ki lahko reproducira tudi signale iz drugih virov in ne le tistih, ki jih oddaja računalnik, v tarifno številko 8471 iz navedenega Poglavja 84. Čeprav predložitveno sodišče tega ni izrecno navedlo v besedilu vprašanja, pa tudi iz obrazložitve predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da se vprašanje natančneje nanaša na opombo 5(B). | |
| A – Trditve strank | |
| 16. | Družba Kamino trdi, da na splošno ne obstajajo in nikoli niso obstajali monitorji, ki bi lahko delovali izključno v povezavi z računalnikom, saj lahko z ustreznimi povezavami kateri koli monitor omogoča prikazovanje slik s sprejemanjem signalov iz najrazličnejših virov. ( 8 ) | |
| 17. | Posledično naj bi stališče Komisije in nizozemskih carinskih organov, ki trdijo, da možnost povezave monitorja z napravami, drugačnimi od računalnika, izključuje uvrstitev monitorja v tarifno številko 8471, privedlo do tega, da bi bila uvrstitev v to tarifno številka izključena za vse monitorje, kar je absurdno. | |
| 18. | Družba Kamino meni tudi, da uvrstitve zadevnih monitorjev v tarifno številko 8471 ni mogoče izključiti niti na podlagi opombe 5(E) k Poglavju 84, saj naj ne bi imeli nobene specifične funkcije, drugačne od obdelave podatkov. ( 9 ) | |
| 19. | Iz opombe 5(B) k Poglavju 84 naj ne bi izhajalo, da se za uvrstitev naprave med proizvode informacijske tehnologije zahteva, da so zunanje enote računalnika namenjene izključno uporabi, povezani z informatiko. V tej opombi je namreč določeno, da morajo biti enote „take vrste, da se samo ali zlasti uporablja[jo]“ v sistemu za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov, zato po mnenju te družbe možnost uporabe, ki je drugačna od uporabe znotraj sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov, načeloma ni v nasprotju z uvrstitvijo v Poglavje 84. ( 10 ) | |
| 20. | Komisija naj bi poleg tega v drugih okoliščinah izrecno priznala, da je v tarifno številko 8471 mogoče uvrstiti nekatere monitorje, ki teoretično lahko reproducirajo slikovne in zvočne signale, ki jih ne oddaja računalnik. Tako naj bi bilo zlasti v okviru Uredbe št. 2171/2005 o uvrstitvi. ( 11 ) | |
| 21. | Po mnenju družbe Kamino iz tega izhaja, da na podlagi opombe 5 k Poglavju 84 KN 2004 ni izključena možnost uvrstitve barvnega monitorja, ki lahko sprejema in reproducira tako signale, ki jih oddaja računalnik, kot signale iz drugih virov, v tarifno številko 8471. | |
| 22. | Nizozemska vlada trdi, da monitorjev, ki lahko prikazujejo sliko tako s sprejemanjem signalov računalnika kot s sprejemanjem signalov iz drugih virov, kakršen je na primer predvajalnik DVD ali igralna konzola, na splošno ni mogoče uvrstiti v tarifno številko 8471, temveč spadajo v tarifno številko 8528 KN 2004. ( 12 ) | |
| 23. | Po drugi strani naj bi za monitorje, kakršni so zadevni, ki so opremljeni s priključki D-sub, DVI-D, USB, S-video in kompozitni video ter avdio izhodom, veljalo, da ne morejo biti uvrščeni v tarifno številko 8471, ker zanje ni mogoče šteti, da so namenjeni samo ali zlasti uporabi v sistemu za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov. ( 13 ) | |
| 24. | Komisija se je osredotočila predvsem na lastnosti obravnavanih monitorjev in izključila možnost, da bi zanje lahko šteli, da so namenjeni uporabi „izključno ali večinoma v sistemih za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov“, ker jih je mogoče glede na tehnične lastnosti brez težav uporabljati tudi drugače. ( 14 ) | |
| 25. | Poleg tega naj bi bila možnost uvrstitve zadevnih monitorjev v okvir Poglavja 84 KN 2004 izključena tudi na podlagi opombe 5(E) tega poglavja, saj naj bi bili monitorji namenjeni tudi opravljanju „specifične funkcije“, drugačne od obdelave podatkov. ( 15 ) | |
| 26. | Komisija meni, da je treba na splošno možnost uvrstitve monitorja v tarifno številko 8471 KN 2004 izključiti, če lahko ta reproducira signale tudi iz virov, drugačnih od računalnika. ( 16 ) | |
| B – Presoja | |
| 1. Predhodne ugotovitve | |
| 27. | Nizozemska vlada in Komisija sta glede prvega vprašanja za predhodno odločanje predstavili obširne ugotovitve v zvezi s posebnimi značilnostmi zadevnih monitorjev v utemeljitev stališča, da ti nimajo lastnosti, potrebnih za uvrstitev v tarifno številko 8471 KN 2004. | |
| 28. | Vendar opozarjam, da predložitveno sodišče s prvim vprašanjem Sodišča ne prosi, naj navede, v katero tarifno številko bi bilo treba uvrstiti obravnavane proizvode. Vprašanje je splošnejše in se nanaša na razlago opombe 5 k Poglavju 84 KN 2004. | |
| 29. | Zato pri preučitvi tega vprašanja ne bom upošteval argumentov, ki so jih predstavile stranke v zvezi s posebnostmi zadevnih proizvodov, temveč se bom omejil na razlago navedene opombe 5. Argumenti strank, ki se nanašajo na posebne lastnosti proizvodov, ki jih je treba uvrstiti, pa bodo lahko upoštevani v okviru obravnave drugega vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, čeprav – kot bomo videli – predložitveno sodišče tudi z drugim vprašanjem Sodišča ne prosi, naj se izreče o konkretnih načinih uvrstitve proizvodov, temveč naj poda določena splošna pojasnila. | |
| 2. Vsebina vprašanja | |
| 30. | Nizozemska vlada in Komisija sta z očitnim namenom, da bi bil spor rešen že z odgovorom na prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, zavzeli stališče, da je treba možnost uvrstitve monitorja v okvir Poglavja 84 KN 2004 izključiti že in samo zato, ker lahko ta prikazuje slike s sprejemanjem signalov iz virov, drugačnih od računalnika. ( 17 ) | |
| 31. | Vendar menim, da tega stališča ni mogoče sprejeti. | |
| 32. | Besedilo opombe 5(B) k Poglavju 84 KN 2004 je namreč jasno: da bi lahko zunanjo enoto (in torej tudi monitor) šteli kot del sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov in jo torej uvrstili v okvir Poglavja 84, ni zahtevano, da je ta enota teoretično namenjena uporabi le kot del takšnega sistema. Zahtevano je namreč, da je ta enota „take vrste, da se samo ali zlasti uporablja“ v sistemu za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov (moj poudarek). | |
| 33. | Če bi sprejeli razlago, ki jo predlagata nizozemska vlada in Komisija, bi morali zanemariti besedno zvezo „ali zlasti“ iz besedila določbe, kar ni dopustno. Tudi enota, ki je namenjena uporabi „zlasti“, čeprav ne izključno, v povezavi z računalnikom, je torej lahko uvrščena kot izdelek informacijske tehnologije. | |
| 34. | Izhodišče stališča, ki ga zagovarjata nizozemska vlada in Komisija, je najverjetneje povezano s praktičnimi težavami opredelitve prislova „zlasti“, in sicer predvsem glede na sodno prakso Sodišča, ki daje v zvezi s carinskim razvrščanjem očitno prednost konkretnim in objektivno preverljivim lastnostim proizvodov. ( 18 ) | |
| 35. | Vendar zaradi možnih težav pri praktični uporabi navedene določbe še ne smemo zanemariti njene materialne sestavine. Rešitev tega problema sega dejansko na naslednjo raven in zato bo lahko obravnavana – znotraj meja vprašanja, na katero mora Sodišče odgovoriti – v okviru preučitve drugega vprašanja za predhodno odločanje. | |
| 3. Morebitna upoštevnost opombe 5(E) k Poglavju 84 | |
| 36. | Menim, da argument Komisije, v skladu s katerim je možnost uvrstitve zadevnega monitorja v okvir Poglavja 84 KN 2004 izključena tudi na podlagi opombe 5(E) tega poglavja, ne zahteva prav obsežne obravnave. | |
| 37. | Najprej naj opozorim, da predložitveno sodišče Sodišča ne prosi, naj presodi, ali se v obravnavanem primeru zadevna določba uporablja. | |
| 38. | Kakor koli pa menim, da lahko na podlagi navedene opombe 5(E) izključimo možnost uvrstitve določene naprave v tarifno številko iz Poglavja 84 KN le, če je „specifična funkcija“, drugačna od obdelave podatkov, tudi edina funkcija, ki jo opravlja zadevna naprava. Sicer bi lahko bili določeni proizvodi uvrščeni na podlagi funkcije, ki je zanje drugotnega pomena ali celo nepomembna. ( 19 ) | |
| 39. | Ne zdi se mi torej, da bi bilo mogoče v obravnavanem primeru uporabiti opombo 5(E). Sodišče je namreč po eni strani že razsodilo, da reprodukcija slike s sprejemanjem signala, ki ga oddaja računalnik, ne spada med „specifične funkcije“ v zgoraj navedenem smislu. ( 20 ) Po drugi strani pa nobena od strank, čeprav se ne strinjajo glede možnih uporab zadevnih monitorjev, ne trdi, da je uporaba, drugačna od uporabe, povezane z avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov (oziroma, povedano drugače, uporaba, ki ne spada na področje „informatike“), edina mogoča. | |
| 4. Pojasnjevalne opombe harmoniziranega sistema in KN | |
| 40. | V nadaljevanju bom preveril, ali je treba v obravnavanem primeru uvrstitev zadevnega monitorja v tarifno številko iz Poglavja 84 KN 2004 izključiti na podlagi pojasnjevalnih opomb harmoniziranega sistema in KN. | |
| a) Pojasnjevalna opomba k tarifni številki 84.71 harmoniziranega sistema | |
| 41. | Najprej naj opozorim, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pojasnjevalne opombe, čeprav so pomembne, nikakor nimajo zavezujočega pravnega učinka in ne smejo biti v nasprotju z vsebino harmoniziranega sistema in KN. ( 21 ) | |
| 42. | V zvezi s pojasnjevalno opombo k tarifni številki 84.71 harmoniziranega sistema, ki je sicer glede na čas dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari več kot dve leti starejša (to pa je obdobje, ki je dovolj dolgo, da se lahko okvir proizvodov s področja informacijske tehnologije, ki se tržijo, celo znatno spremeni), ugotavljam, da bi jo lahko razložili tako, da se ne nanaša na vse monitorje, ki spadajo v tarifno številko 84.71, temveč le na del teh. To stališče naj bi potrjeval prvi del besedila te opombe, v skladu s katerim „[m]ed enote, ki so del“ sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov, „spadajo zasloni za stroje za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov“. Sklepali bi torej lahko, da obstajajo tudi drugi zasloni, ki bi lahko bili uvrščeni v tarifno številko 84.71, čeprav niso opredeljivi kot „zasloni za stroje za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov“. | |
| 43. | A tudi če bi upoštevali stališče, da je namen obravnavane opombe dejansko izčrpno navesti vse monitorje, ki jih je treba uvrstiti v tarifno številko 84.71, bi ga morali opustiti na podlagi naslednjih ugotovitev. Takšna razlaga pojasnjevalne opombe temelji na izhodišču, ki sem ga že opredelil kot napačnega, in sicer da so lahko v tarifno številko 84.71 uvrščeni samo monitorji, ki jih je mogoče povezati izključno z računalnikom. Povedano drugače, v pojasnjevalni opombi ni upoštevana niti možnost, ki pa je jasno predvidena v besedilu harmoniziranega sistema, da bi bil lahko monitor, ki je namenjen tudi uporabi – sicer ne prvenstveno – v kontekstih, drugačnih od „informacijskotehnološkega“, uvrščen v tarifno številko 84.71. ( 22 ) Posledično torej te opombe – če bi jo razlagali tako – ne bi mogli uporabiti, saj bi bila v nasprotju z besedilom harmoniziranega sistema. | |
| 44. | Poleg tega ugotavljam, da proizvod, ki se obravnava v tem postopku, glede drugih tehničnih lastnosti, navedenih v obravnavani pojasnjevalni opombi za monitorje iz tarifne številke 84.71, povsem ustreza tej skupini naprav. | |
| b) Pojasnjevalna opomba k tarifni številki 84716090 KN | |
| 45. | Možnosti uvrstitve zadevnih monitorjev v tarifno številko 84716090 KN 2004 ni mogoče izključiti niti na podlagi pojasnjevalne opombe k tej tarifni številki. | |
| 46. | V tej pojasnjevalni opombi so namreč proizvodi opredeljeni primeroma/vključevalno in ne izčrpno. Povedano drugače, gre za opredelitev posebne skupine proizvodov, ki naj bi bili uvrščeni v to tarifno številko, vendar ne da bi bila ob tem izključena možnost uvrstitve drugih proizvodov, drugačnih od opredeljenih, v isto tarifno številko. To razmeroma jasno izhaja iz besedila opombe. ( 23 ) | |
| 5. Vloga sporazuma STO o trgovini z izdelki informacijske tehnologije | |
| 47. | Zgornje ugotovitve dodatno potrjuje tudi sporazum STO o trgovini z izdelki informacijske tehnologije. | |
| 48. | Ne smemo namreč pozabiti, da izhaja osrednja težava uvrstitve zadevnih proizvodov iz dejstva, da so lahko ti glede na tarifno številko KN, v katero so uvrščeni, zavezani plačilu uvoznih dajatev ali oproščeni tega plačila. | |
| 49. | Natančneje, proizvodi informacijske tehnologije so na splošno oproščeni dajatev na podlagi sporazuma, doseženega v okviru Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO), kot izhaja iz Ministrske deklaracije z dne 13. decembra 1996 o trgovini z izdelki informacijske tehnologije. Ta sporazum je Svet potrdil s Sklepom št. 97/359/ES z dne 24. marca 1997 o odpravi carinskih dajatev na izdelke informacijske tehnologije. ( 24 ) | |
| 50. | Komisija in nekatere države članice se zavzemajo za ozko razlago tega sporazuma in za kar največjo omejitev obsega proizvodov, za katere je s sporazumom zagotovljena oprostitev dajatev. | |
| 51. | Vendar menim, da je treba, čeprav je neposredna uporaba sporazumov STO v pravu Skupnosti dokaj problematična, ( 25 ) glede na obveznost skladne razlage ( 26 ) pri razlagi KN upoštevati, da je v tem sporazumu izražena jasna naklonjenost prostemu in z dajatvami neobremenjenemu pretoku izdelkov informacijske tehnologije. ( 27 ) | |
| 6. Prostovoljna enostranska opustitev dajatev na določene vrste monitorjev | |
| 52. | Tudi zakonodajalec Skupnosti je priznal, da je nedvoumna uvrstitev monitorjev s tekočimi kristali težavna. Od leta 2005 so namreč vsi monitorji s tekočimi kristali z diagonalno izmero, ki ne presega 48,5 cm (približno 19 palcev), in z razmerjem med širino in višino zaslona 4:3 ali 5:4 oproščeni dajatev. ( 28 ) Ta odločitev enostranske narave je bila sprejeta zaradi težav z opredeljevanjem glavnega namena zadevnih proizvodov, ki so se pojavljale v praksi, in na podlagi ugotovitve, da „[p]odatki o trgovini kažejo, da se trenutno monitorji, ki kot zaslonsko tehnologijo uporabljajo tekoče kristale, ki imajo diagonalno izmero zaslona 48,5 cm ali manj ter z razmerjem med širino in višino zaslona 4:3 ali 5:4, večinoma uporabljajo kot izhodne enote strojev za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov“. ( 29 ) | |
| 53. | Ta prostovoljna opustitev v času dejanskega stanja, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari, sicer še ni začela veljati, poleg tega pa tehnične lastnosti zadevnih monitorjev ne sovpadajo z lastnostmi proizvodov, za katere je predvidena (njihove dimenzije so nekoliko večje, drugačno je razmerje med širino in višino). | |
| 54. | Kljub temu ugotavljam, da iz Uredbe št. 493/2005 jasno izhaja, da monitorjev ni mogoče uvrščati na podlagi preprostih meril in predvsem da je treba sprejeti dejstvo, da so lahko določeni zasloni, ki reproducirajo signal tudi iz vira, različnega od stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo, dejansko uporabljani zlasti na področju „informatike“. | |
| 7. Predlog glede prvega vprašanja za predhodno odločanje | |
| 55. | Končujem torej z ugotovitvijo, da je treba na prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da je treba opombo 5 k Poglavju 84 KN 2004 razlagati tako, da možnost uvrstitve barvnega monitorja v tarifno številko 8471 KN 2004 ne more biti izključena samo zato, ker lahko ta reproducira tako signale stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov kot signale iz drugih virov. | |
| V – Drugo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje | |
| 56. | Predložitveno sodišče z drugim vprašanjem za predhodno odločanje sprašuje, na podlagi katerih elementov je mogoče – če možnost uvrstitve zadevnega monitorja v tarifno številko 8471 KN 2004 ni izključena – opredeliti, ali ta izpolnjuje pogoje iz opombe 5(B) za uvrstitev med proizvode informacijske tehnologije. | |
| A – Trditve strank | |
| 57. | Družba Kamino trdi, da je treba pri opredelitvi, ali gre za monitor, ki se uporablja samo ali zlasti v sistemu za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov, upoštevati uporabo, ki ji je proizvod samo ali zlasti namenjen. | |
| 58. | Meni, da bi lahko v obravnavanem primeru na podlagi različnih objektivnih lastnosti sklepali, da je treba zadevne monitorje uvrstiti v okvir Poglavja 84 KN 2004. Šlo naj bi zlasti za velikost točk („dot pitch“), ločljivost, razmerje med širino in višino 16:10, obstoj priključkov VGA in DVI, neobstoj daljinskega upravljalnika, priključka SCART, TV-uglaševalnika, gumbov za preklapljanje med kanali. ( 30 ) | |
| 59. | Nizozemska vlada in Komisija pa menita, da glede na odgovor, ki ga predlagata v zvezi s prvim vprašanjem, na to vprašanje ni treba odgovoriti. | |
| 60. | Kljub takemu načelnemu stališču pa sta ti stranki v okviru obravnave prvega vprašanja predstavili določene ugotovitve, ki se zdijo logično bolj povezane z drugim vprašanjem za predhodno odločanje. | |
| 61. | Natančneje, nizozemska vlada je opozorila, da po njenem mnenju monitorja s takimi posebnimi lastnostmi, kot jih ima zadevni proizvod, ni mogoče prištevati med monitorje, ki so namenjeni samo ali zlasti uporabi v sistemu za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov: še zlasti ne glede na priključke, s katerimi je obravnavana naprava opremljena (D-sub, DVI-D, USB, S-video, kompozitni video, avdio izhod). ( 31 ) | |
| 62. | Po mnenju nizozemske vlade, kot izhaja iz njenega odgovora na vprašanja Sodišča, je lahko monitor uvrščen v tarifno številko 8471 le, če so njegove možne uporabe, ki „niso informacijskotehnološke“, „samo teoretične“. | |
| 63. | Komisija je navedla, da je treba besedilo „da je take vrste, da se samo ali zlasti uporablja v strojih za AOP“, vsebovano v opombi 5(B) k Poglavju 84 KN 2004, razumeti tako, da se ne nanaša na vrsto uporabe naprave, temveč na funkcije, ki jih ta opravlja. ( 32 ) Poleg tega meni, da so tehnične lastnosti zadevnega monitorja, zlasti velikost, ločljivost in svetilnost, take, da so povsem primerne za uporabo v kontekstih, drugačnih od informacijskotehnološkega, tako da pogoj iz točke (a) navedene opombe 5(B) ni izpolnjen. ( 33 ) | |
| B – Presoja | |
| 64. | Sodišče mora tudi pri odgovoru na to vprašanje, ki je izmed treh vprašanj za predhodno odločanje najverjetneje najbolj občutljivo, oblikovati splošna pojasnila o načinu razlage kombinirane nomenklature. Pozvano je namreč, naj pojasni natančen pomen določbe iz točke (a) opombe 5(B) k Poglavju 84 KN 2004 in, podrobneje, katere dejavnike je treba upoštevati pri opredelitvi, ali določen proizvod izpolnjuje pogoje, predvidene v navedeni določbi. | |
| 65. | Ker se od Sodišča ne zahteva, naj natančno navede, v katero tarifno številko kombinirane nomenklature je treba uvrstiti zadevne monitorje, je za odločitev o tem pristojno predložitveno sodišče, ki pa bo moralo pri presoji upoštevati navedbe Sodišča. | |
| 66. | Osrednja težava, na katero se opozarja s tem vprašanjem, se nanaša na opredelitev prislova „zlasti“. ( 34 ) Medtem ko predhodni prislov „samo“ ne more biti predmet posebnih dvomov glede razlage, je namreč pomen izraza „zlasti“ precej bolj dvoumen. | |
| 67. | Ker je povsem očitno, da razlage tega prislova ni mogoče podati v matematičnem/odstotnem smislu (z navedbo odstotnega deleža uporabe v povezavi z računalnikom, ki bi znašala, na primer, 80% celotne uporabe), Sodišču predlagam, naj pojem „glavna uporaba“ razlaga enako kot pojem „običajna uporaba“. | |
| 68. | Zdi se mi namreč, da je tveganje dvoumnosti manjše, če v zvezi s konkretnimi primeri uporabimo pojem „običajna uporaba“. | |
| 69. | Poleg tega menim, da se izraz „zlasti“, vsebovan v obravnavani določbi, ne nanaša na časovno porazdelitev uporabe proizvoda, temveč na njegov namen, ki je najpogostejši. Povedano drugače, od razlagalca ni zahtevano, naj preveri, kolikšen je odstotni delež vsake posamezne rabe proizvoda, če je ta uporabljen v različnih kontekstih, temveč – preprosteje – katera je „značilna“ ali „običajna“ uporaba proizvoda. | |
| 70. | Zato bo moral razlagalec v konkretnem primeru za vsak posamezen obravnavan proizvod preveriti, katera je uporaba, za katero se lahko razumno šteje, da ji je namenjen. | |
| 71. | A četudi sledimo razlagi, ki jo predlagam, in torej upoštevamo običajno uporabo zadevnega proizvoda, je treba odgovoriti še na vprašanje glede opredelitve dejavnikov, ki jih je treba konkretno uporabiti za tak preizkus. | |
| 72. | Menim, da ni dvomov, da so glavni dejavnik, ki ga je treba v zvezi s tem upoštevati, tehnične lastnosti proizvoda. V primeru zadevnih monitorjev bo moralo predložitveno sodišče pri presoji, ali običajna uporaba proizvoda sovpada z uporabo v okviru sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov ali ne, očitno upoštevati lastnosti, kakršne so ločljivost, format (razmerje med širino in višino zaslona), opremljenost s priključki, ( 35 ) možnost nastavitve zaslona po višini in naklonu, posebne ergonomske lastnosti, ki olajšujejo „pisarniški“ način dela itd. | |
| 73. | Bolj vprašljiva je možnost, da bi za opredelitev običajne rabe proizvoda upoštevali namembnost proizvoda s trgovskega stališča oziroma – povedano drugače – glede na „cilj“ proizvoda. Po mojem mnenju je treba to možnost izključiti. | |
| 74. | Očitno je namreč, da se tveganje zlorab povečuje s priznavanjem pomena elementom, kakršen je javno predstavljeni namen izdelka, naveden na embalaži ali v oglasnem gradivu. Niso namreč redki primeri proizvodov z različnih področij, katerih javno predstavljeni nameni so drugačni od dejanskih, ki se skušajo prikriti, da bi proizvajalec zaobšel predpise o prepovedi prodaje ali o prevzemu odgovornosti: in to kljub temu, da se javnost, ki so ji proizvodi namenjeni, popolnoma zaveda, kakšna je njihova resnična namenskost. | |
| 75. | Menim, da je pravkar predstavljeno stališče tudi v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča, ki je sicer načeloma dopustilo možnost, da se za namene tarifne uvrstitve določenega proizvoda upošteva tudi njegova namenskost, vendar je poudarilo, da je treba o tem presoditi na podlagi posebnih objektivnih dejavnikov. ( 36 ) | |
| 76. | Argument, ki ga je poudarjala zlasti Komisija na obravnavi, v skladu s katerim uporaba, ki ji je proizvod namenjen, ni upošteven dejavnik za namene tarifne uvrstitve proizvoda, se mi ne zdi utemeljen. Po eni strani namreč ugotavljam, da je prav v opombi 5(B) k Poglavju 84 KN 2004 omenjena „uporaba“ proizvoda (navedeno je, da mora biti enota „take vrste, da se samo ali zlasti uporablja v strojih za AOP“; moj poudarek). Po drugi strani pa opozarjam, da govorimo tu o uporabi proizvoda, ki je povezana z njegovimi objektivnimi lastnostmi: gre torej prav tako za objektiven dejavnik in ne za spremenljivko, ki bi bila subjektivno ocenjena ali povezana z načini trženja proizvoda. | |
| 77. | Zato Sodišču predlagam, naj na drugo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje odgovori, da je treba za ugotovitev, ali je proizvod „take vrste, da se samo ali zlasti uporablja v strojih za AOP“, v smislu točke (a) opombe 5(B) k Poglavju 84 KN 2004, preveriti, ali spada običajna uporaba proizvoda v okvir sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov. V ta namen je treba pri presoji vsakega posameznega primera upoštevati vse objektivne lastnosti zadevnega proizvoda. | |
| VI – Tretje vprašanje za predhodno odločanje | |
| 78. | Predložitveno sodišče s tretjim in zadnjim vprašanjem za predhodno odločanje sprašuje, ali spadajo zadevni monitorji na področje uporabe Uredbe št. 754/2004; če je odgovor na to vprašanje pritrdilen, navedeno sodišče sprašuje še, ali je ta uredba veljavna. | |
| A – Trditve strank | |
| 79. | Družba Kamino, ki vprašanja predložitvenega sodišča obravnava v obratnem vrstnem redu, zatrjuje, prvič, da Uredba št. 754/2004 ni zakonita, saj naj bi bila glede na v njej jasno navedeno namero Komisije, da bo v vsakem primeru preprečila uvrstitev v tarifno številko 8471 KN katerega koli monitorja, ki lahko reproducira video signale iz virov, drugačnih od računalnika, v nasprotju s KN in, splošneje, tudi s harmoniziranim sistemom ter z obveznostmi, ki jih je prevzela Skupnost kot del tega sistema. ( 37 ) | |
| 80. | Drugič, zadevne uredbe naj v obravnavani zadevi – tudi če je zakonita – ne bi bilo mogoče uporabiti, ker se nanaša na proizvode, ki so povsem drugačni od tistih, ki se obravnavajo v tem postopku. ( 38 ) | |
| 81. | Nizozemska vlada nasprotno meni, da je zadevna uredba veljavna in da se lahko uporablja tudi za obravnavane monitorje, in sicer neposredno ali vsaj po analogiji. ( 39 ) | |
| 82. | Po mnenju Komisije glede na odgovor, dan na prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, na tretje vprašanje ni treba odgovoriti. | |
| B – Presoja | |
| 83. | Menim, da Uredbe Komisije št. 754/2004 ni mogoče uporabiti za zadevne monitorje iz razlogov, ki jih bom pojasnil v nadaljevanju. | |
| 84. | Predvsem je treba izključiti možnost neposredne uporabe Uredbe, saj se tehnične lastnosti zadevnih monitorjev pomembno razlikujejo od zaslonov, ki so predmet uvrstitve v tej uredbi. | |
| 85. | V Uredbi št. 754/2004 so namreč za namene tarifne uvrstitve obravnavani plazmatski zasloni z diagonalno izmero 106 cm (kar ustreza približno 42 palcem) in ločljivostjo 852 x 480 ter 1024 x 1024 točk. | |
| 86. | Že ta elementa jasno kažeta, da gre za proizvode, ki so popolnoma drugačni od tistih, ki se obravnavajo v tem postopku: naj namreč spomnim, da je velikost zadevnih monitorjev precej manjša (23 palcev, to je 58,42 cm), ločljivost pa veliko boljša (1920 x 1200 točk). To je poleg tega skladno tudi z razlikami med dvema uporabljenima tehnologijama: medtem ko je zaslon s tekočimi kristali lahko namenjen različnim uporabam glede na svoje tehnične lastnosti, pa je za plazmatske zaslone značilno, da se uporabljajo za reprodukcijo – z ločljivostjo, ki je glede na njihovo velikost razmeroma nizka – televizijskih signalov, filmov, predstavitev. | |
| 87. | Po drugi strani ni mogoče sprejeti niti argumenta nizozemske vlade, predstavljenega v točki 41 njenih pisnih izjav, v skladu s katerim plazmatska tehnologija, ki je značilna za monitorje iz Uredbe št. 754/2004, ni pomemben dejavnik in torej ne vpliva na upoštevnost te uredbe za monitorje, ki so predmet spora o glavni stvari. Menim namreč, da temu nasprotujeta objektivna ugotovitev glede razlik med plazmatsko in LCD-tehnologijo in dejstvo, ki ga je na obravnavi priznala tudi nizozemska vlada, da plazmatski zasloni praviloma niso uporabljani kot zunanje izhodne enote strojev za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov. Povedano drugače, zadevni izdelki niso zamenljivi. | |
| 88. | Preveriti je torej treba – kot predlaga nizozemska vlada prav tako v točki 41 svojih pisnih izjav – samo še to, ali je Uredbo št. 754/2004 mogoče uporabiti za zadevne monitorje po analogiji in ne neposredno. | |
| 89. | Vendar menim, da je tudi odgovor na to vprašanje nikalen. | |
| 90. | Čeprav je namreč Sodišče na splošno dopustilo možnost, da se določena uredba o tarifni uvrstitvi uporabi po analogiji, je ob tem pojasnilo, da je taka uporaba mogoča le v zvezi s proizvodi, ki so „zamenljivi“ s tistimi, obravnavanimi v uredbi, saj je le tako mogoče zagotoviti „skladno razlago KN in enako obravnavo gospodarskih subjektov“. ( 40 ) Vendar v obravnavanem primeru, kot smo videli, ni mogoče trditi, da so zadevni monitorji s tekočimi kristali kakor koli zamenljivi s plazmatski zasloni, ki so predmet Uredbe št. 754/2004. | |
| 91. | Zato ugotavljam, da je treba na tretje vprašanje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da zadevni monitorji ne spadajo na področje uporabe Uredbe št. 754/2004. Posledično niso podani niti razlogi za morebitno ugotovitev, da ta uredba ni zakonita. | |
| VII – Predlog | |
| 92. | Na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev Sodišču predlagam, naj na vprašanja Hoge Raad odgovori tako: | 1. | Opombo 5 k Poglavju 84 kombinirane nomenklature za leto 2004 je treba razlagati tako, da možnost uvrstitve barvnega monitorja v tarifno številko 8471 kombinirane nomenklature za leto 2004 ne more biti izključena samo zato, ker lahko ta monitor reproducira tako signale stroja za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov kot signale iz drugih virov. | 2. | Za ugotovitev, ali je proizvod „take vrste, da se samo ali zlasti uporablja v strojih za AOP“, v smislu točke (a) opombe 5(B) k Poglavju 84 kombinirane nomenklature za leto 2004, je treba preveriti, ali spada običajna uporaba proizvoda v okvir sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov. V ta namen je treba pri presoji vsakega posameznega primera upoštevati vse objektivne lastnosti zadevnega proizvoda. | 3. | Monitorji, ki so predmet postopka v glavni stvari, ne spadajo na področje uporabe Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 754/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o uvrstitvi nekaterih vrst blaga v kombinirano nomenklaturo. | |
| ( 1 ) Jezik izvirnika: italijanščina. | |
| ( 2 ) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1789/2003 z dne 11. septembra 2003 o spremembi Priloge I k Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2658/87 o tarifni in statistični nomenklaturi ter skupni carinski tarifi (UL L 281, str. 1). | |
| ( 3 ) Glede umestitve v okvir določb KN in njihovega razmerja s harmoniziranim sistemom glej sodbo z dne 12. januarja 2006 v zadevi ASAD (C-311/04, ZOdl., str. I-609, točka 25, in navedena sodna praksa). | |
| ( 4 ) Navedene pojasnjevalne opombe so bile sprejete februarja 2002. Besedilo je na razpolago le v angleškem in francoskem jeziku: prevod zato ni uraden. | |
| ( 5 ) Pojasnjevalne opombe kombinirane nomenklature Evropskih skupnosti (UL 23.10.2002, C 256, str. 1). | |
| ( 6 ) UL L 118, str. 32. | |
| ( 7 ) Poleg tega naj opozorim, da sem – kljub temu da je v predložitveni odločbi navedeno, da so zadevni monitorji opremljeni s takim „avdio izhodom“, in da tega stranke niso izpodbijale – po pregledu dokumentacije, objavljene na spletni strani proizvajalca (www.benq.com), ugotovil, da je „avdio izhod“ v resnici 12-voltni priključek za dva zunanja zvočnika, ki sta torej lahko priključena na monitor, vendar sta – kar zadeva sprejem signala – povezana z zunanjim avdio izvorom. Povedano drugače, kaže, da proizvod nima lastnega avdio priključka. | |
| ( 8 ) Točka 41 pisnih izjav družbe Kamino. | |
| ( 9 ) Ibidem, točka 45. | |
| ( 10 ) Ibidem, točka 55. | |
| ( 11 ) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 2171/2005 z dne 23. decembra 2005 o uvrstitvi določenega blaga v kombinirano nomenklaturo (UL L 346, str. 7). Natančneje, v tej uredbi je bil v tarifno številko 8471 uvrščen barvni monitor s tekočimi kristali (LCD) z diagonalno izmero zaslona 15 palcev, največjo ločljivostjo 1024 x 768 točk in s samo enim vmesnikom D-sub. Komisija je v utemeljitev te uvrstitve navedla: „Monitor se uporablja za sprejemanje signalov centralne procesne enote sistema za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov. Izdelek lahko tudi reproducira video in zvočne signale. Vendar zaradi velikosti in omejene sposobnosti sprejemanja signalov iz vira, ki ni naprava za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov prek kartice, ki ne omogoča obdelave videa, spada med izdelke, ki se uporabljajo izključno ali večinoma v sistemih za avtomatsko obdelavo podatkov.“ | |
| ( 12 ) Pisne izjave nizozemske vlade, točka 34. | |
| ( 13 ) Ibidem, točka 36. | |
| ( 14 ) Pisne izjave Komisije, točke od 28 do 36. | |
| ( 15 ) Ibidem, točka 37. | |
| ( 16 ) Ibidem, točka 39. | |
| ( 17 ) To izhaja, kot sem že navedel zgoraj, zlasti iz točke 34 pisnih izjav nizozemske vlade in iz točke 39 pisnih izjav Komisije. Poleg tega naj opozorim, da so stranke kljub temu predstavile tudi argumente, ki – čeprav to ni jasno navedeno – izhajajo iz stališča, da sama možnost prikazovanja slikovnih signalov iz virov, drugačnih od računalnika, ne zadošča za izključitev uvrstitve proizvoda v tarifno številko iz Poglavja 84, saj bi morala biti za izključitev podana še okoliščina, da ta „alternativna“ ali „dodatna“ funkcija ni le drugotnega pomena ali teoretična (glej na primer točko 36 pisnih izjav nizozemske vlade in točko 36 pisnih izjav Komisije). Glede podrobnejših pojasnil v zvezi s tem glej obravnavo drugega vprašanja za predhodno odločanje. | |
| ( 18 ) Glej na primer sodbe z dne 26. septembra 2000 v zadevi Eru Portuguesa (C-42/99, Recueil, str. I-7691, točka 13), z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi DFDS (C-396/02, ZOdl., str. I-8439, točka 27) in z dne 8. decembra 2005 v zadevi Possehl Erzkontor (C-445/04, ZOdl., str. I-10721, točka 19). Glej tudi točko 75 teh sklepnih predlogov. | |
| ( 19 ) V zvezi s tem naj mi bo glede podrobnejše obravnave tega problema dovoljeno napotiti na sklepne predloge, ki sem jih 17. julija 2008 predstavil za sodbo v združenih zadevah Kip Europe in drugi, C-362/07 in C-363/07 (točke od 50 do 69). | |
| ( 20 ) Sodba z dne 19. maja 1994 v zadevi Siemens Nixdorf (C-11/93, Recueil, str. I-1945, točka 16). | |
| ( 21 ) Glej na primer sodbe z dne 19. aprila 2007 v zadevi Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft (C-229/06, ZOdl., str. I-3251, točka 27), z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Olicom (C-142/06, ZOdl., str. I-6675, točka 31, in navedena sodna praksa) in z dne 5. junija 2008 v zadevi JVC France (C-312/07, ZOdl., str. I-4165, točka 34). | |
| ( 22 ) V času teh sklepnih predlogov veljavna različica pojasnjevalnih opomb harmoniziranega sistema iz leta 2007 pa je bolj odprta. V opombi k tarifni številki 8528, v katero so zdaj uvrščeni vsi monitorji, je namreč navedeno, da so med monitorje, namenjene samo ali zlasti uporabi v povezavi z računalnikom (ki jih je treba uvrstiti v tarifno podštevilko 8528.41), „vključeni“ tisti, ki so lahko povezani le z računalnikom. Možnost uvrstitve tudi drugih monitorjev v to tarifno številko torej ni izključena. | |
| ( 23 ) V nekaterih jezikovnih različicah pojasnjevalnih opomb je to, da opredelitev proizvodov v opombi ni izčrpna, poudarjeno s prislovom. V italijanskem besedilu je na primer navedeno, da spadajo v to tarifno številko „specialmente“ (posebej) monitorji, ki lahko delujejo le v povezavi z računalnikom; v francoskem besedilu je uporabljen izraz „notamment“, v španskem pa „especialmente“. V drugih jezikovnih različicah pa prislova ni, čeprav je mogoče tudi iz teh besedil razbrati, da opredelitev ne zajema vseh proizvodov, ki se uvrščajo v tarifno številko 84716090. V angleški različici je navedeno, da „[t]his subheading includes visual display units which can only be used as output units for an automatic data-processing machine“, v nemški, da „[h]ierher gehören Datensichtgeräte, die nur als Ausgabeeinheiten von automatischen Daten-verarbeitungsmaschinen verwendet werden können“, v nizozemski pa, da „[d]eze onderverdeling omvat beeldschermeenheden die uitsluitend kunnen worden gebruikt als uitvoereenheid voor een automatische gegevensverwerkende machine“ (moji poudarki). | |
| ( 24 ) UL L 155, str. 1. Združene države so maja 2008 formalno vložile pritožbo pri STO zaradi prakse Skupnosti v zvezi s carinjenjem teh izdelkov in med drugim tudi monitorjev, kot so ti, ki so predmet obravnave v tej zadevi. V času priprave teh sklepnih predlogov so v zvezi s tem na razpolago le splošni novinarski povzetki, tako da natančnega poročila glede tega vprašanja še ni mogoče podati. Iz novinarskih virov izhaja, da sta pritožbi Združenih držav sledili pritožbi Japonske in Tajvana. | |
| ( 25 ) Sodišče je večkrat zatrdilo, da so za možnost uporabe določenega sporazuma STO v smislu merila za presojo zakonitosti akta Skupnosti določeni zelo strogi pogoji: glej sodbo z dne 30. septembra 2003 v zadevi Biret & Cie proti Svetu (C-94/02 P, Recueil, str. I-10565, točki 55 in 56, in navedena sodna praksa). Sodišče je v tej sodbi ugotovilo, da je mogoče zakonitost akta Skupnosti presojati na podlagi sporazuma STO le, če je Skupnost akt sprejela z namenom izpolnjevanja posebne obveznosti, sprejete v okviru STO, oziroma če se akt izrecno sklicuje na natančno opredeljene določbe sporazumov STO. Videti je, da v primeru KN ni izpolnjen noben izmed teh pogojev. | |
| ( 26 ) V zvezi s to obveznostjo glej, na splošno, sodbe z dne 24. novembra 1992 v zadevi Poulsen (C-286/90, Recueil, str. I-6019, točka 9), z dne 10. septembra 1996 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (C-61/94, Recueil, str. I-3989, točka 52) in z dne 14. julija 1998 v zadevi Bettati (C-341/95, Recueil, str. I-4355, točka 20). V zvezi s Sporazumom TRIPS, ki se umešča v okvir sistema STO, s katerim imata enake lastnosti, glej sodbe z dne 16. junija 1998 v zadevi Hermès International (C-53/96, Recueil, str. I-3603, točka 28), z dne 14. decembra 2000 v združenih zadevah Dior in drugi (C-300/98 in C-392/98, Recueil, str. I-11307, točka 47) in z dne 16. novembra 2004 v zadevi Anheuser-Busch (C-245/02, ZOdl., str. I-10989, točka 55). | |
| ( 27 ) Glej tudi moje sklepne predloge v zadevi Kip Europe in drugi (navedena v opombi 19), točke od 67 do 69. | |
| ( 28 ) To je s sprejetjem Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 493/2005 z dne 16. marca 2005 o spremembi Priloge I k Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2658/87 o tarifni in statistični nomenklaturi ter skupni carinski tarifi (UL L 82, str. 1). Določbe o tem so bile ohranjene v poznejših različicah KN: v različici, ki velja za leto 2008, vsebovani v Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1214/2007 z dne 20. septembra 2007 (UL L 286, str. 1), je tarifna številka, v katero se uvrščajo ti proizvodi, 85285990. | |
| ( 29 ) Tretja uvodna izjava Uredbe št. 493/2005. | |
| ( 30 ) Pisne izjave družbe Kamino, točke od 81 do 99. | |
| ( 31 ) Pisne izjave nizozemske vlade, točka 36. | |
| ( 32 ) Pisne izjave Komisije, točka 35. | |
| ( 33 ) Pisne izjave Komisije, točka 36. | |
| ( 34 ) Različice opombe 5(B) v drugih jezikih se glede te točke ne razlikujejo pomembno: italijanski besedni zvezi „esclusivamente o principalmente“ ustrezajo na primer francoska „exclusivement ou principalement“, angleška „solely or principally“, nemška „ausschließlich oder hauptsächlich“, španska „exclusiva o principalmente“, nizozemska „uitsluitend of hoofdzakelijk“. | |
| ( 35 ) V zvezi s tem naj povem, da v nasprotju s stališčem, ki ga, kot je videti, zagovarjata nizozemska vlada in Komisija, menim, da obstoj priključka DVI sam po sebi ne izključuje možnosti, da bi bil monitor uporabljen predvsem v „informacijskotehnološkem“ kontekstu. V zadnjih letih je namreč vse več, in najverjetneje večina, monitorjev opremljena prav z video izhodom DVI, ki je dejansko nadomestil izhod VGA. | |
| ( 36 ) Glej na primer sodbe z dne 28. marca 2000 v zadevi Holz Geenen (C-309/98, Recueil, str. I-1975, točka 15), z dne 5. aprila 2001 v zadevi Deutsche Nichimen (C-201/99, Recueil, str. I-2701, točka 20), z dne 4. marca 2004 v zadevi Krings (C-130/02, Recueil, str. I-2121, točka 30) in sodbo Olicom (navedeno v opombi 21), točka 18. Poleg tega naj opozorim, da je v sodbi z dne 17. marca 2005 v zadevi Ikegami (C-467/03, ZOdl., str. I-2389, točka 24) Sodišče kot dejavnik navedlo, čeprav ad adiuvandum, tudi načine promocije in trženja proizvoda. | |
| ( 37 ) Pisne izjave družbe Kamino, točke od 100 do 106. | |
| ( 38 ) Ibidem, točka 107. | |
| ( 39 ) Pisne izjave nizozemske vlade, točke od 38 do 42. | |
| ( 40 ) Sodba Krings (navedena v opombi 36), točka 35. | |
| | Opinion of the Advocate-General |
| | I – Introduction |
| | 1. In this case, the Court of Justice is asked to answer three questions submitted for a preliminary ruling by the national court, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), concerning certain provisions of the Combined Nomenclature. The national court must give a ruling on the rules governing the classification of a liquid crystal display monitor (‘LCD’ monitor) imported by Kamino International Logistics BV (‘Kamino’). It is against that background that the national court asks the Court of Justice to interpret certain provisions of the Combined Nomenclature. |
| | II – Legislative background |
| | A – The provisions of the Combined Nomenclature |
| | 2. The version of the Combined Nomenclature applicable to the facts of this case is the Combined Nomenclature for 2004 (‘the 2004 CN’), contained in Regulation No 1789/2003. (2) |
| | 3. Section I of Part One of the 2004 CN, entitled ‘General rules’ provides that: |
| | ‘… |
| | Classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature 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 and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions. |
| | … |
| | 3. When … goods are … classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: |
| | (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. … |
| | (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable; |
| | (c) when goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. |
| | 4. Goods which cannot be classified in accordance with the above rules shall be classified under the heading appropriate to the goods to which they are most akin.’ |
| | 4. Section XVI of the 2004 CN is entitled ‘Machinery and mechanical appliances; electrical equipment; parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers; television image and sound recorders and reproducers, and parts and accessories of such articles’. That section contains Chapter 84 which covers ‘Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances; parts thereof’, and Chapter 85 which covers ‘Electrical machinery and equipment and parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers; television image and sound recorders and reproducers, and parts and accessories of such articles’. |
| | 5. Chapter 84 is prefaced by the following ‘Notes’: |
| | ‘… |
| | 5. |
| | … |
| | (B) Automatic data-processing machines may be in the form of systems consisting of a variable number of separate units. Subject to paragraph E below, a unit is to be regarded as being a part of a complete system if it meets all of the following conditions: |
| | (a) it is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system; |
| | (b) it is connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more other units; |
| | (c) it is able to accept or deliver data in a form (codes or signals) which can be used by the system. |
| | (C) Separately presented units of an automatic data-processing machine are to be classified in heading 8471. |
| | (D) Printers, keyboards, x-y coordinate input devices and disk storage units which satisfy the conditions of paragraphs (B)(b) and (B)(c) above are in all cases to be classified as units of heading 8471. |
| | (E) Machines performing a specific function other than data processing and incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data-processing machine are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings. |
| | …’ |
| | 6. Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN contains the following headings and subheadings, among others: |
| | ‘8471 Automatic data-processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included. |
| | … |
| | 8471 60 – Input or output units, whether or not containing storage units in the same housing: |
| | … |
| | 8471 60 90 – Other’. |
| | 7. Chapter 85 of the 2004 CN, however, includes the following headings and subheadings: |
| | ‘8528 Reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus; video monitors and video projectors: |
| | … |
| | – Video monitors: |
| | 8528 21 – – Colour |
| | – – – With cathode-ray tube: |
| | … |
| | 8528 21 90 – – – Other’. |
| | B – The Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System |
| | 8. The Harmonised System, drawn up under the auspices of the World Customs Organisation, is the basis on which the Combined Nomenclature is drafted. (3) The Harmonised System is accompanied by explanatory notes. In particular, the explanatory notes to heading 8471, applicable at the time of the facts of the main proceedings, read as follows: |
| | ‘Among the constituent units [of a data-processing system] included are display units of automatic data-processing machines which provide a graphical representation of the data processed. They differ from the video monitors and television receivers of heading 85.28 in several ways, including the following: |
| | (1) Display units of automatic data-processing machines are capable of accepting a signal only from the central processing unit of an automatic data-processing machine and are therefore not able to reproduce a colour image from a composite video signal whose waveform conforms to a broadcast standard (NTSC, SECAM, PAL, D-MAC etc.). They are fitted with connectors characteristic of data-processing systems (e.g. RS-232C interface DIN or [D-Sub] connectors) and do not have an audio circuit. … |
| | (2) These display units are characterised by low magnetic field emissions. Their display pitch starts at 0.41 mm for medium resolution and gets smaller as the resolution increases. |
| | (3) In order to accommodate the presentation of small yet well-defined images, display units of this heading utilise smaller dot (pixel) sizes and greater convergence standards than those applicable to video monitors and television receivers of heading 85.28. …’ (4) |
| | C – The Explanatory Notes to the CN |
| | 9. The Explanatory Notes to the CN applicable at the material time, drawn up by the Commission, (5) provide as follows in relation to subheading 8471 60 90: |
| | ‘This subheading includes visual display units which can only be used as output units for an automatic data-processing machine. These units cannot reproduce an image from a coded (composite video) signal.’ |
| | D – Regulation No 754/2004 |
| | 10. Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (6) classified under subheading 8528 21 90 two products described as follows: |
| | ‘1. A colour plasma screen with a diagonal measurement of the screen of 106 cm (overall dimension 104 (W) x 64.8 (H) x 9.5 (D) cm) with an 852 x 480 pixel configuration. |
| | The device has the following interfaces: |
| | – an RGB connector, |
| | – a DVI connector (digital visual interface), |
| | – a control connector. |
| | The RGB connector enables the device to display data directly from an automatic data-processing machine. |
| | The DVI connector enables the device to display signals from an automatic data-processing machine or from another source, such as a DVD player or a video game player via a tuner box. |
| | 2. A colour plasma screen with a diagonal measurement of the screen of 106 cm (overall dimension 103 (W) x 63.6 (H) x 9.5 (D) cm) with a 1 024 x 1 024 pixel configuration and detachable loudspeakers. |
| | The device has the following interfaces: |
| | – a DVI connector (digital visual interface), |
| | – a control connector. |
| | The DVI connector enables the device to display signals from an automatic data-processing machine or from another source, such as a DVD player or a video game player via a tuner box.’ |
| | 11. The reasons given for that classification, and they are the same for both the products in question, are as follows: |
| | ‘Classification is determined by General Rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, and by the wording of CN codes 8528, 8528 21 and 8528 21 90. |
| | Classification under subheading 8471 60 is excluded as the monitor is not of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system (see Note 5 to Chapter 84). |
| | Likewise, the product is not classifiable under heading 8531 because its function is not to provide visual indication for signalling purposes (see the HSEN to heading 8531, point D).’ |
| | III – Main proceedings and questions referred |
| | 12. In August 2004, Kamino imported a consignment of model BenQ FP231W colour monitors with the following features: 23 inch (58.42 cm) diagonal measurement, maximum resolution 1 920 x 1 200 pixel points, screen aspect ratio 16:10, brightness 250 cd/m 2 , contrast ratio 500:1, 16.7 million colours, pixel dimension 0.258 mm. The monitor has connections for D-Sub (VGA), DVI-D, USB, S-video and composite video, as well as an audio outlet. (7) |
| | 13. The Netherlands customs authorities took the view that the monitor in question must be classified under subheading 8528 21 90 of the 2004 CN. Kamino, however, considers that the product in question must be classified under heading 8471 of the 2004 CN. |
| | 14. The national court seised of the dispute at last instance considered it necessary to submit to the Court, in that regard, the following questions for a preliminary ruling: |
| | ‘(1) Must Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 be interpreted as meaning that a colour monitor which can display both signals from an automatic data-processing machine as referred to in heading 8471 of the CN and from other sources is excluded from classification under heading 8471 of the CN? |
| | (2) If classification in heading 8471 of the CN of the colour monitor referred to in the first question above is not excluded, on the basis of which criteria must it then be determined whether it is a unit of the sort that is solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system? |
| | (3) Does the scope of application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 on the classification of certain goods in the CN extend to the monitor at issue and, if so, in the light of the answers to the first and second questions, is that regulation valid?’ |
| | IV – The first question |
| | 15. By its first question, the national court asks whether Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN means that a monitor that is capable of displaying signals originating not only from a computer, but from other sources also, is excluded from classification under heading 8471 of Chapter 84. Although the national court does not explicitly mention this in the text of the question, it is clear, including from the grounds of the order for reference, that the allusion is more specifically a reference to Note 5(B). |
| | A – Arguments of the parties |
| | 16. Kamino maintains that, generally speaking, monitors capable of operating solely in connection with a computer do not exist, and have never existed, since, if the appropriate connectors are used, any monitor is capable of displaying images from a variety of sources. (8) |
| | 17. Consequently, the view of the Commission and the Netherlands customs authorities that, if a monitor can be connected to a device other than a computer, then the monitor itself cannot be classified under heading 8471 of the 2004 CN, would imply that no monitor could be classified under that heading, and that would be a nonsensical outcome. |
| | 18. Furthermore, classification of the monitors in question under heading 8471 cannot be ruled out on the basis of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN, since the monitors at issue do not perform a specific function other than data processing. (9) |
| | 19. Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 does not itself require that, in order to be classified as data-processing apparatus, a computer’s peripherals should be designed solely for use in a computing context. In fact, since the provision in question requires that the peripherals should be ‘of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system’, the possibility that they may be used in a context other than a data-processing system is not, in principle, incompatible with classification in Chapter 84. (10) |
| | 20. Furthermore, according to Kamino, on other occasions, the Commission has explicitly acknowledged the possibility of classifying under heading 8471 some monitors which are theoretically capable of reproducing audio and video signals that do not originate from a computer. It did so in the context of Regulation No 2171/2005 on CN classification, in particular. (11) |
| | 21. It follows that Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN does not exclude the classification under heading 8471 of a colour monitor that is able to display both signals originating from a computer and signals from other sources. |
| | 22. The Netherlands Government maintains that, generally speaking, a monitor that is able to reproduce both signals originating from a computer and signals from other sources, such as a DVD player or a game console, cannot be classified under heading 8471, but must instead be classified under heading 8528 of the 2004 CN. (12) |
| | 23. Furthermore, a monitor of the kind in question, which has D-Sub, DVI-D, USB, S-video and composite video connectors, as well as an audio outlet, cannot fall within heading 8471, as it cannot be regarded as solely or principally able to be used in an automatic data-processing system. (13) |
| | 24. The Commission first considers the characteristics of the monitors in question, and rules out any possibility that they may be regarded as being ‘solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system’, because, as a result of their technical characteristics, they could easily be put to other uses. (14) |
| | 25. According to the Commission, classification of the monitors in question in Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN is also ruled out pursuant to Note 5(E) of that chapter, because the monitors also have a ‘specific function other than data processing’. (15) |
| | 26. More generally, the Commission considers that if it is possible for a monitor to reproduce signals originating from sources other than a computer, that monitor cannot be classified under heading 8471 of the 2004 CN. (16) |
| | B – Analysis |
| | 1. Preliminary observations |
| | 27. In relation to the first question referred, both the Netherlands Government and the Commission have described at length the specific features of the monitors in question, in support of their contention that those monitors do not possess the characteristics required for classification under heading 8471 of the 2004 CN. |
| | 28. However, I would point out that, by its first question, the national court does not ask the Court of Justice to indicate in which tariff heading the products in question should be classified. The question actually turns, more generally, on how Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN is to be interpreted. |
| | 29. In my analysis of this question, I shall not, therefore, consider the arguments of the parties concerning the particular characteristics of the products at issue, but shall confine myself to interpreting Note 5. In any event, the arguments of the parties concerning the particular characteristics of the products to be classified may be taken into consideration as part of the examination of the second question, even though, as we shall see, the national court does not ask the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the specific rules governing classification of the products in that question either, but, once again, merely asks it to provide some general guidelines. |
| | 2. The substance of the question |
| | 30. The approach taken by the Netherlands Government and the Commission in this case, with the clear aim of resolving the dispute solely on the basis of the answer to the first question, consists of claiming that the mere fact that a monitor is capable of displaying images originating from sources other than a computer means that the monitor must be excluded from classification in Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN. (17) |
| | 31. That approach does not, however, seem to me to merit acceptance. |
| | 32. The actual wording of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN is in fact clear: for a peripheral to be able to be regarded as an integral part of a data-processing system, and, therefore, to be classified in Chapter 84, the requirement is not that the peripheral should, theoretically, be capable of being used only as part of that system. The actual requirement is that the peripheral should be ‘of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system’ (emphasis added). |
| | 33. The interpretation proposed by the Netherlands Government and the Commission would be tantamount to removing from the text of the provision the parenthetical ‘or principally’, and it is, therefore, unacceptable. Even a unit designed to be used ‘principally’, although not solely, in connection with a computer may, therefore, be classified as a data-processing product. |
| | 34. In all probability, the idea underlying the approach of the Netherlands Government and the Commission is linked to the practical difficulties involved in determining the actual scope of the adverb ‘principally’, particularly in the light of the Court’s case-law, which very much focuses on products’ specific and objectively verifiable characteristics, for the purposes of customs classification. (18) |
| | 35. However, the fact that the practical application of the abovementioned provision is potentially problematic cannot lead to a substantial element of the provision being ignored. Resolving those problems is actually a matter that arises at a subsequent stage, and may be discussed, in so far as the Court is asked to rule in this case, in the context of the examination of the second question referred. |
| | 3. The possible relevance of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN |
| | 36. I consider that it is worth commenting only briefly on the Commission’s argument that classification of the monitors in question under Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN is excluded on the basis of Note 5(E) to that chapter also. |
| | 37. I would first of all point out in that connection that the national court has not asked the Court to assess the applicability in this case of the provision in question. |
| | 38. In any event, I consider that Note 5(E) may not exclude a device from being classified in Chapter 84 of the CN unless the ‘specific function other than data processing’ is the only function the device in question performs. Otherwise, certain products might be classified on the basis of a function they possess which is an entirely secondary, if not irrelevant, function. (19) |
| | 39. It does not, therefore, seem to me that Note 5(E) can be applied in this case. On the one hand, in fact, the Court has already held that the activity of a monitor consisting in the reproduction of images from a computer cannot constitute a ‘specific function’ as defined above. (20) On the other hand, even though the parties are in dispute as to the uses to which the monitors in question may be put, none of them claims that uses unrelated to data processing (or, in other words, ‘non-computer’ uses) are the only possible uses. |
| | 4. The Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System and the CN |
| | 40. It remains to be established whether, in this case, classification of the monitors in question under Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN must be ruled out on the basis of the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System and the CN. |
| | a) The explanatory note to heading 84.71 of the Harmonised System |
| | 41. It should first be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, although an important aid, the Explanatory Notes do not, in any event, have legally binding force, and must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Harmonised System and the CN. (21) |
| | 42. As regards the explanatory note to heading 84.71 of the Harmonised System, I would point out that since that note, which, moreover, pre-dates the facts of the main proceedings by more that two years (long enough, as far as information technologies are concerned, for there to be significant changes to the range of products marketed), it could also be interpreted as meaning that it does not indicate all of the monitors that are caught by heading 84.71, but only some of them. The beginning of the note itself makes provision to that effect, stating that ‘included’ ‘[a]mong the constituent units’ of a data-processing system ‘are display units of automatic data-processing machines’. In that case, there could be other display units which, although not able to be defined as ‘display units of automatic data-processing machines’, could still be classified under heading 84.71. |
| | 43. If, however, it is accepted that the explanatory note in question in fact seeks to provide an exhaustive list of the monitors to be classified under heading 84.71, the following must be pointed out. Interpreted in that way, the explanatory note is based on the assumption, which I have already stated to be incorrect, that only monitors that may be connected solely to a computer can be classified under heading 84.71. In other words, the explanatory note does not envisage even the possibility, although this is clearly provided for in the text of the Harmonised System, of a monitor able to be classified under heading 84.71, even though it can also be used, albeit not principally, in contexts other than ‘computing’. (22) Consequently, if construed in that way, the note could not be applied, for it would conflict with the wording of the Harmonised System itself. |
| | 44. I would point out, moreover, that as regards the other technical characteristics which the note in question lists for monitors falling within heading 84.71, the product at issue in this case appears fully to comply with them. |
| | b) The explanatory note to subheading 8471 60 90 of the 2004 CN |
| | 45. Nor does the explanatory note applicable to subheading 8471 60 90 of the 2004 CN permit classification of the monitors in question under that same subheading to be excluded. |
| | 46. In point of fact, the explanatory note in question is illustrative/inclusive, and not exhaustive, in nature. In other words, it identifies a specific group of products that are caught by that subheading, but does not preclude the classification under that subheading of different products, other than those thus identified. That is quite apparent from the wording of the note itself. (23) |
| | 5. The role of the WTO agreement on the trade in information technology products |
| | 47. The observations set out thus far are further confirmed in the light of the WTO agreement on the trade in information technology products. |
| | 48. It must not be forgotten that, in the final analysis, the essential difficulty in classifying the products in question resides in the fact that, depending on the CN heading under which those products are classified, they may, or may not, be subject to an import duty. |
| | 49. More particularly, information technology products are generally exempt from the imposition of duties, pursuant to an agreement to that effect reached within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and based on the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products of 13 December 1996. That agreement was put into effect by the Council by Decision 97/359/EC of 24 March 1997 concerning the elimination of duties on information technology products. (24) |
| | 50. As a rule, the Commission and some Member States tend to interpret that agreement restrictively, limiting as far as possible the range of products on which the agreement confers exemption from duties. |
| | 51. However, even if the direct applicability in Community law of the WTO agreement is very problematic, (25) I consider that, in accordance with the obligation to interpret Community law in a manner compatible with the agreement, (26) the fact that the latter clearly favours the free movement of information technology products without the imposition of duties must be taken into account when interpreting the CN. (27) |
| | 6. The voluntary unilateral suspension of the duties on certain types of monitor |
| | 52. The Community legislature has itself recognised the difficulty of unequivocally classifying LCD monitors. As of 2005 in fact, all colour LCD monitors with a diagonal measurement of 48.5 cm or less (about 19 inches) and a screen aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 have been exempt from duty. (28) That unilateral decision was taken in response to the practical difficulties in ascertaining the principal use of the products in question, as well as based on the finding that ‘[t]rade data indicate that currently monitors using liquid crystal technology with a diagonal measurement of 48.5 cm or less and a screen aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 are mainly used as output units of automatic data-processing machines’. (29) |
| | 53. That voluntary suspension of duties had yet to enter into force at the time of the facts of the main proceedings, and, in any event, the technical characteristics of the monitors at issue in these proceedings do not correspond to the characteristics of the products which benefit from that suspension of duties (their dimensions are in fact slightly larger and they have a different screen aspect ratio). |
| | 54. I would, however, point out that Regulation No 493/2005 clearly shows that it is impossible to classify monitors in a simplistic way and, above all, that it must be accepted that some monitors that are potentially capable of reproducing signals from sources other than a computer may, in any event, actually be used primarily in a ‘computing’ context. |
| | 7. Conclusion on the first question |
| | 55. In conclusion, I consider that the first question referred must be answered to the effect that Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN must be interpreted as meaning that a colour monitor, which is capable of reproducing both signals from an automatic data-processing machine and signals from other sources, is not, solely for that reason, excluded from classification under heading 8471 of the 2004 CN. |
| | V – The second question |
| | 56. By its second question, the national court asks, if classification of the monitor in question under heading 8471 of the 2004 CN is not excluded, on the basis of what criteria is it possible to ascertain whether monitors of that kind satisfy the requirements set out in Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN for classification among data-processing products. |
| | A – Arguments of the parties |
| | 57. Kamino maintains that, in order to ascertain whether a monitor is of the sort that is solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system, it is necessary to take account of the sole or principal use for which the product is intended. |
| | 58. In this case, according to Kamino, a number of objective factors make it possible to establish that the monitors in question must be classified in Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN. Those factors include, in particular, the pixel dimension (‘dot pitch’), the resolution, the screen aspect ratio of 16:10, the presence of VGA and DVI connectors, the absence of a remote control, SCART connector, a TV tuner and push buttons for changing channel. (30) |
| | 59. For their part, however, both the Netherlands Government and the Commission consider that, in the light of the answer that they propose to the first question, it is not necessary to answer the second. |
| | 60. Notwithstanding that position of principle, however, those parties have also put forward, in the context of the dispute in relation to the first question, a number of considerations which appear actually to be logically connected to the second question. |
| | 61. In particular, the Netherlands Government has stated that, in its view, a monitor with the specific characteristics of the monitors at issue here cannot be regarded as being of the sort designed to be used solely or principally in connection with an automatic data-processing system, especially bearing in mind the connectors which the apparatus possesses (D-Sub, DVI-D, USB, S-video, composite video, audio outlet). (31) |
| | 62. According to the Netherlands Government, which stated this in response to the Court’s questions, for a monitor to be classified under heading 8471 of the 2004 CN, its possible ‘non-computer-related’ uses must be ‘strictly theoretical’. |
| | 63. The Commission has stated that the expression ‘of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system’, contained in Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN, must be regarded as referring not to the type of use of the apparatus but to the functions which it performs. (32) Furthermore, the technical characteristics of the monitor in question, and, in particular, its dimensions, resolution and brightness make it perfectly suited for use in contexts other than computing, with the result that the conditions under Note 5(B)(a) are not satisfied. (33) |
| | B – Analysis |
| | 64. This question too, which is probably the most difficult of the three questions referred, requires the Court to provide some general guidelines on how the Combined Nomenclature is to be interpreted. In particular, the Court is asked to indicate the exact meaning of the provision under Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN and, more specifically, which criteria must be taken into account in order to determine whether or not a product satisfies the conditions laid down by Note 5(B)(a). |
| | 65. Since the Court is not asked to indicate under which specific heading of the Combined Nomenclature the monitors in question must be classified, that particular decision remains a matter for the national court, which will have to decide in accordance with the Court’s guidelines. |
| | 66. The key problem raised by this question is how to define the adverb ‘principally’. (34) While the preceding adverb ‘solely’ is not open to particular doubts as to its interpretation, the meaning of the word ‘principally’ is very much less unambiguous. |
| | 67. Since it is quite obviously not possible to interpret that adverb in mathematical or percentage terms (for instance, by setting a percentage use in connection with a computer equivalent to 80% of total use), I propose to the Court that it should interpret the concept of ‘principal use’ as equivalent to the concept of ‘normal use’. |
| | 68. It in fact seems to me that the concept of ‘normal use’ can be applied to the specific cases with less risk of ambiguity. |
| | 69. Moreover, I consider that the word ‘principally’, contained in the provision, refers not to an apportionment of the periods of time for which the product is used but, rather, to its most frequent use. In other words, the person interpreting ‘principally’ is asked to ascertain not the percentage accounted for by each different use of the product, if it is used in different contexts, but, more straightforwardly, the product’s ‘typical’ or ‘normal’ use. |
| | 70. In the individual case, the person making the interpretation will have, therefore, to determine, in relation to the product at issue at any given time, the use for which that product must reasonably be regarded as being intended. |
| | 71. Furthermore, again in accordance with the interpretation that I have suggested, and seeking, therefore, to consider the normal use of the product in question, there is still the problem of establishing the actual criteria that should be applied to the conduct of that analysis. |
| | 72. In my view, there is no doubt that the technical characteristics of the product constitute the fundamental criterion to be taken into account in that connection. In the case of the monitors at issue, it will plainly be characteristics like the resolution, the screen aspect ratio (the width of the screen in relation to its height), the available connectors, (35) the possibility of adjusting the height and screen tilt angle, the presence of certain specific ergonomic features designed to facilitate close ‘desktop’ use and so forth, which the national court will have to analyse in order to determine whether or not the product is normally used in connection with an automatic data-processing system. |
| | 73. The possibility of taking account of the product’s intended commercial use, in other words its ‘target’ use, in order to determine its normal use, seems to me to be more problematical. In my view, that option should be excluded. |
| | 74. It is in fact clear that if significance is attached to elements such as the product’s declared use, as indicated on its packaging or in advertising material, there is an increased risk of abuse. In a variety of fields, instances of products which are surreptitiously presented as being intended for uses other than their real use, in order, for example, to circumvent sales bans or rule out producer liability, are in fact anything but infrequent, even though the relevant public is actually perfectly well aware of the real intended use of the products in question. |
| | 75. The position set out above seems to me, moreover, to be consistent with the case-law of the Court which, while in principle accepting the possibility of taking a product’s intended use into account in order to determine its customs classification, has, nevertheless, stressed that that intended use must be based on specific and objective criteria. (36) |
| | 76. I do not consider to be well founded the argument, particularly emphasised by the Commission at the hearing, that a product’s intended use is irrelevant for the purposes of its classification. On the one hand, I would point out that Note 5(B) itself to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN refers to the product’s ‘use’ (where it mentions products ‘of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system’; emphasis added). On the other hand, I would point out that what is under discussion here is the use of a product on the basis of its objective characteristics: that itself is an objective criterion, therefore, and not a variable that is subjective or linked to the methods of marketing the product itself. |
| | 77. I therefore propose that the Court should answer the second question by declaring that, in order to be able to ascertain that a product is ‘of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system’, within the meaning of Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN, it is necessary to determine whether the product’s normal use is in connection with an automatic data-processing system. For that purpose, it is necessary to take into account all of the objective characteristics of the product in question as part of an assessment on an individual case basis. |
| | VI – The third question |
| | 78. By its third and final question, the national court asks whether the monitors in question fall within the scope of Regulation No 754/2004, and, if so, whether that regulation is valid. |
| | A – Arguments of the parties |
| | 79. Kamino, reversing the order of the issues raised by the national court, begins by contending that Regulation No 754/2004 is unlawful since, by indicating the Commission’s clear intention of, in any case, preventing the classification under heading 8471 of the CN of any monitor capable of reproducing video signals from sources other than a computer, the regulation is incompatible with the CN itself and, more generally, with the Harmonised System and the obligations entered into by the Community as a party to that system. (37) |
| | 80. In any event, even if it were lawful, the regulation in question is not applicable to this case, since it relates to products of a completely different kind from the products at issue here. (38) |
| | 81. The Netherlands Government, however, considers that the regulation in question is valid and may also apply to the monitors at issue, directly or, if necessary, by analogy. (39) |
| | 82. However, according to the Commission, in the light of the answer to the first question, it is unnecessary to answer the third question. |
| | B – Analysis |
| | 83. I consider that Commission Regulation No 754/2004 cannot be applied to the monitors at issue for the following reasons. |
| | 84. First of all, direct application of the regulation itself has to be ruled out because of the significant technical differences between the monitors at issue here and the display units forming the subject-matter of classification in the regulation. |
| | 85. Regulation No 754/2004 in fact takes into consideration, with a view to their classification for customs purposes, two plasma screens with a diagonal measurement of 106 cm (equivalent to about 42 inches) and a resolution of 852 x 480 and 1 024 x 1 024 pixels respectively. |
| | 86. Solely on that basis, those two aspects clearly demonstrate that these products are completely different from the products forming the subject-matter of these proceedings: it must in fact be recalled that, although they have a far smaller diagonal measurement (23 inches, that is to say 58.42 cm), the monitors at issue in this case have a far higher resolution (1 920 x 1 200 pixels). That, however, seems consistent with the different technologies on which the products under comparison are based: whereas, in fact, a liquid crystal screen may be suitable for different uses, depending on its technical characteristics, plasma screens are typically used to reproduce, at relatively lower resolutions in relation to their dimensions, television and film signals and presentations. |
| | 87. Nor is it possible to accept the argument of the Netherlands Government, set out in paragraph 41 of its observations in particular, that the plasma technology which characterises the monitors to which Regulation No 754/2004 relates is not a relevant criterion and does not preclude the applicability of that regulation to the monitors at issue in this dispute. I actually consider that this is precluded by the objective consideration consisting in the differences that exist between plasma and LCD technology, and the fact, acknowledged at the hearing by the Netherlands Government itself, that plasma screens are not generally used as output peripherals for data-processing machines. In other words, the products in question are not interchangeable. |
| | 88. It remains to be established whether, as the Netherlands Government suggests, again in paragraph 41 of its observations, Regulation No 754/2004 may be applicable to the monitors at issue here not directly but by analogy. |
| | 89. Here again, however, I consider that the answer must be that it is not. |
| | 90. Even though the Court has generally accepted the possibility of applying a classification regulation by analogy, it did so making clear that this may be done in relation to products ‘similar’ to those mentioned in the regulation, since this ‘facilitates a coherent interpretation of the CN and the equal treatment of operators’. (40) In this case, however, as we have seen, the LCD monitors at issue cannot be regarded as in any way similar to the plasma screens which formed the subject-matter of Regulation No 754/2004. |
| | 91. It is, therefore, my view that the third question must be answered to the effect that the monitors at issue are not caught by Regulation No 754/2004. Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest that the regulation is unlawful. |
| | VII – Conclusion |
| | 92. In the light of the above considerations, I propose that the Court should give the following answers to the questions referred by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden: |
| | (1) Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature for 2004 contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that a colour monitor, which is capable of reproducing both signals from an automatic data-processing machine and signals from other sources, is not, solely for that reason, excluded from classification under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature for 2004. |
| | (2) In order to be able to ascertain that a product is ‘of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system’, within the meaning of Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature for 2004, it is necessary to determine whether the product’s normal use is in connection with an automatic data-processing system. For that purpose, it is necessary to take into account all of the objective characteristics of the product in question as part of an assessment on an individual case basis. |
| | (3) The monitors at issue are not caught by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature. |
| | (1) . |
| | (2) – Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1). |
| | (3) – For an explanation of the provisions of the CN and their relationship with the Harmonised System in context, see Case C-311/04 Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht [2006] ECR I-609, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited therein. |
| | (4) – The Explanatory Notes date back to February 2002. They are available in English and French only. [ Omissis – not relevant to the English text]. |
| | (5) – Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (OJ 2002 C 256, p. 1). |
| | (6) – OJ 2004 L 118, p. 32. |
| | (7) – I note, moreover, that even though the presence of this ‘audio outlet’ appears in the order for reference and is not challenged by the parties, looking at the documentation available on the producer’s website (www.benq.com) that ‘audio outlet’ appears in fact to be a 12 V socket to power two external loudspeakers that can be hooked up to the monitor but need to be connected, as far as the signal is concerned, to an external audio source. In other words, the product does not appear to have an audio circuit. |
| | (8) – Paragraph 41 of Kamino’s observations. |
| | (9) – Ibid., paragraph 45. |
| | (10) – Ibid., paragraph 55. |
| | (11) – Commission Regulation (EC) No 2171/2005 of 23 December 2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2005 L 346, p. 7). In particular, that regulation classifies under heading 8471 an LCD monitor with a diagonal measurement of the screen of 15 inches, a resolution of 1 024 x 768 pixels and a single D-Sub interface. Among the reasons which the Commission gives for that classification is the following: ‘[t]he intended use of the monitor is that of accepting signals from the central processing unit of an automatic data-processing system. The product is also capable of reproducing both video and sound signals. Nevertheless, in view of its size and its limited capability of receiving signals from a source other than an automatic data-processing machine via a card without video-processing features, it is considered to be of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system.’ |
| | (12) – Observations of the Netherlands Government, paragraph 34. |
| | (13) – Ibid., paragraph 36. |
| | (14) – Commission’s observations, paragraphs 28 to 36. |
| | (15) – Ibid., paragraph 37. |
| | (16) – Ibid., paragraph 39. |
| | (17) – That emerges, more particularly, as I have noted above, from paragraph 34 of the observations of the Netherlands Government and paragraph 39 of the Commission’s observations. Moreover, I would point out that those same parties have also put forward arguments which, although this is not made clear, are based on the supposition that the mere possibility of displaying signals that do not originate from a computer is not sufficient to exclude classification in Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN, as that requires that the ‘alternative’ or ‘further’ function should not be merely marginal or theoretical (see, for example, paragraph 36 of the observations of the Netherlands Government and paragraph 36 of the Commission’s observations). For further details in this connection, see the analysis of the second question referred. |
| | (18) – See, for example, Case C-42/99 Eru Portuguesa [2000] ECR I-7691, paragraph 13; Case C‑396/02, DFDS [2004] ECR I-8439, paragraph 27; and Case C-445/04 Possehl Erzkontor [2005] ECR I-10721, paragraph 19. See also point 75 of this Opinion. |
| | (19) – For a more detailed exposition of the problem, I would refer to points 50 to 69 of my Opinion delivered on 17 July 2008 in Joined Cases C‑362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others (judgment pending before the Court). |
| | (20) – Case C-11/93 Siemens Nixdorf [1994] ECR I-1945, paragraph 16. |
| | (21) – See, for example, Case C-229/06 Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft [2007] ECR I‑3251, paragraph 27; Case C-142/06 Olicom [2007] ECR I-6675, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited therein; and Case C-312/07 JVC France [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34. |
| | (22) – The current version of the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System, which dates from 2007, is, however, more open. According to the note relating to heading 8528, under which all monitors are now classified, monitors designed to be used solely or principally in connection with a computer (to be classified under subheading 8528.41) ‘include’ monitors able to be connected only to a computer. The classification of other monitors also under that heading is not, therefore, excluded. |
| | (23) – In some language versions of the Explanatory Notes, the presence of an adverb indicates that the note in question is not exhaustive in character. The Italian text, for example, states that the heading covers ‘specialmente’ monitors able to function only when hooked up to a computer; the French text uses the word ‘notamment’ and the Spanish the word ‘especialmente’. The adverb does not, however, appear in other language versions, even though the wording of the sentence seems, in any event, to suggest, in such cases also, that this is not an exhaustive list of the range of products caught by subheading 8471 60 90 of the 2004 CN. In particular, the English version states that ‘[t]his subheading includes visual display units which can only be used as output units for an automatic data-processing machine’; the German version that ‘[h]ierher gehören Datensichtgeräte, die nur als Ausgabeeinheiten von automatischen Datenverarbeitungsmaschinen verwendet werden können’, and the Dutch version that ‘[d]eze onderverdeling omvat beeldschermeedheden die uitsluitend kunnen worden gebruikt als uitvoereenheid voor een automatische gegevensverwerkende machine’ (emphasis added). |
| | (24) – OJ 1997 L 155, p. 1. In May 2008, the United States of America formally challenged at the WTO Community customs practice in relation, among other things, to monitors of the type at issue in this case. At the time of the drafting of this Opinion, only general media accounts were available, making it impossible to make a precise analysis of the issue. Media reports also indicate that the action by the United States has been followed by similar steps by Japan and Taiwan. |
| | (25) – The Court has repeatedly held that the possibility of using a WTO agreement as a criterion for assessing the legality of a Community act is subject to very strict conditions: see, by way of illustration, Case C-94/02 P Biret & Cie v Council [2003] ECR I-10565, paragraphs 55 and 56 and the case-law cited therein. On that occasion, the Court held that, to be able to assess the legitimacy of a Community act on the basis of a WTO agreement, it is necessary that ‘the Community has intended to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO, or … the Community measure refers expressly to the precise provisions of the WTO agreements’. Neither of those conditions appears to be met in the case of the CN. |
| | (26) – See, generally, in relation to that obligation, Case C-286/90 Poulsen and Diva Navigation [1992] ECR I-6019, paragraph 9; Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-3989, paragraph 52; and Case C‑341/95 Bettati [1998] ECR I-4355, paragraph 20. With specific reference to the TRIPS Agreement, which falls within the WTO system and has the same features, see Case C‑53/96 Hermès International [1998] ECR I-3603, paragraph 28; Joined Cases C-300/98 and C‑392/98 Dior and Others [2000] ECR I-11307, paragraph 47; and Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch [2004] ECR I-10989, paragraph 55. |
| | (27) – See also my Opinion in Kip Europe and Others , cited in footnote 19, points 67 to 69. |
| | (28) – That is to say as of Council Regulation (EC) No 493/2005 of 16 March 2005 amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclatures and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 82, p. 1). The provision is, consequently, retained in the subsequent versions of the CN: in the version in force for 2008, contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 286, p. 1), the reference subheading is 8528 59 90. |
| | (29) – Recital 3 in the preamble to Regulation No 493/2005. |
| | (30) – Kamino’s observations, paragraphs 81 to 99. |
| | (31) – Observations of the Netherlands Government, paragraph 36. |
| | (32) – Commission’s observations, paragraph 35. |
| | (33) – Ibid., paragraph 36. |
| | (34) – The various language versions of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the 2004 CN do not display significant differences on that point: the Italian ‘esclusivamente o principalmente’ is, for example, mirrored by the French ‘exclusivement ou principalement’, the English ‘solely or principally’, the German ‘ausschließlich oder hauptsächlich’, the Spanish ‘exclusiva o principalmente’, and the Dutch ‘uitsluitend of hoofdzakelijk’. |
| | (35) – I would point out in that connection that, in my view, and contrary to what the Netherlands Government and the Commission appear to argue, the presence of a DVI connection does not of itself make it possible to exclude primary use being for ‘computing’ purposes. That is because, in recent years, an ever-increasing number and now, probably, the majority of computers are equipped with a DVI outlet which has in fact taken the place of the VGA outlet. |
| | (36) – See, for example, Case 309/98 C- Holz Geenen [2000] ECR I-1975, paragraph 15; Case C-201/99 Deutsche Nichimen [2001] ECR I-2701, paragraph 20; Case C‑130/02 Krings [2004] ECR I‑2121, paragraph 30; and Olicom , cited in footnote 21, paragraph 18. I would also point out that in its judgment in Case C-467/03 Ikegami [2005] ECR I-2389, paragraph 24, the Court in any event referred, albeit purely as an aid, to the methods of commercially promoting a product. |
| | (37) – Kamino’s observations, paragraphs 100 to 106. |
| | (38) – Ibid., paragraph 107. |
| | (39) – Observations of the Netherlands Government, paragraphs 38-42. |
| | (40) – Krings , cited in footnote 36, paragraph 35. |
