Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

++++
1 . COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - DESCRIPTION OF GOODS - UNIFORM SCOPE IN THE COMMON MARKET - INTERPRETATION - RESPECT FOR COMMUNITY JURISDICTION - PROHIBITION AGAINST THE ISSUE BY MEMBER STATES OF BINDING RULES OF INTERPRETATION
( REGULATION NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL )
2 . COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - DESCRIPTION OF GOODS - INTERPRETATION - ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS - AUTHORITY OF EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS OF THE CONVENTION ON THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE

1 . SINCE THE INDIVIDUAL TARIFF HEADINGS MUST HAVE THE SAME SCOPE IN ALL MEMBER STATES, THEIR INTERPRETATION CAN ONLY BE FIXED IF THE POWERS VESTED IN THE COMMUNITY ARE RESPECTED . CONSEQUENTLY, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS COMMUNITY INTERPRETATION, THE EFFECT OF A BINDING INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE HEADINGS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .
2 . IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT COMMUNITY PROVISIONS, THE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND THE CLASSIFICATIONS OPINIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE CONVENTION ON NOMENCLATURE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS IN CUSTOMS TARIFFS ARE AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HEADINGS TO THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .

IN CASE 14/70
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
DEUTSCHE BAKELS GMBH
AND
OBERFINANZDIREKTION MUENCHEN

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 160/66/EEC OF THE COUNCIL, REPLACED BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1059/69 OF THE COUNCIL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL .

1 BY AN ORDER DATED 25 FEBRUARY 1970, RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 6 APRIL 1970, THE BUNDESFINANZHOF OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EEC, REFERRED TO THE COURT SEVERAL QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 JUNE 1968 CONCERNING THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ( OJ L 172 1968 ).
THE FIRST QUESTION
2 BY THE FIRST QUESTION THE COURT IS ASKED TO RULE WHETHER, WHERE THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT YET ISSUED EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR HEADINGS TO THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, THE EXPLANATORY NOTES ISSUED BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS HAVING THE FORCE OF A BINDING INTERPRETATION OF THESE TARIFF HEADINGS .
3 THE COUNCIL ISSUED PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 28 AND 111 OF THE EEC TREATY REGULATION NO 950/68 CONCERNING THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, WHICH CONTAINS THE CUSTOMS TARIFF AS AN ANNEX . THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HEADINGS OF THIS TARIFF CAN ONLY BE FIXED IF THE POWERS VESTED IN THE COMMUNITY ARE RESPECTED . FOR IT FOLLOWS FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF THAT THE INDIVIDUAL TARIFF HEADINGS MUST HAVE THE SAME SCOPE IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES . THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD BE JEOPARDIZED IF, WHERE THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES IN CLASSIFYING A PRODUCT FOR TARIFF PURPOSES, EACH MEMBER STATE WERE ITSELF ABLE TO FIX THIS SCOPE BY WAY OF INTERPRETATION .
4 ALTHOUGH, WHERE THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES IN CLASSIFYING A PRODUCT, THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION MAY FIND IT ADVISABLE TO TAKE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES AND TO ELUCIDATE THEREBY THE DOUBTS RAISED BY THE DESCRIPTION OF A PRODUCT, IT MAY ONLY DO SO BY OBSERVING COMMUNITY LAW, WITHOUT THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES' BEING ABLE TO ISSUE RULES OF INTERPRETATION HAVING BINDING EFFECT .
5 ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST QUESTION PUT BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF MUST BE ANSWERED TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS COMMUNITY INTERPRETATION, THE EFFECT OF A BINDING INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE HEADINGS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .
THE SECOND QUESTION
6 IN THE EVENT OF A NEGATIVE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THE BUNDESFINANZHOF ASKS THE COURT TO RULE WHETHER, WHERE EXPLANATORY NOTES HAVE NOT YET BEEN ISSUED BY THE COMMUNITY FOR HEADINGS TO THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE OF 1955 ON THESE HEADINGS ARE AUTHORITATIVE .
7 IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ANNEXED TO REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 IS BASED ON THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CONVENTION ON NOMENCLATURE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS IN CUSTOMS TARIFFS OF 15 DECEMBER 1950 TO WHICH THE MEMBER STATES WERE PARTIES .
8 IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UNIFORM INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE NOMENCLATURE, ARTICLES III AND IV OF THE CONVENTION PROVIDE THAT A NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL IS TO ISSUE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS .
9 THESE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND OPINIONS ARE A MEANS OF INTERPRETATION FOR THE ORIGINAL AND PRESENT MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE INDIVIDUAL TARIFF HEADINGS . IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS ISSUED BY THE COMMUNITY, THEREFORE, THEIR AUTHORITY AS REGARDS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMENCLATURE CANNOT BE IGNORED BY THE INSTITUTIONS CALLED UPON TO APPLY THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS INCORPORATING THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE .
10 IN PARTICULAR WHERE NO COMMUNITY EXPLANATORY NOTES HAVE YET BEEN ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE TARIFF HEADINGS TO THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, THE OBSERVANCE OF THESE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND OPINIONS IS A USEFUL MEANS OF ENSURING THAT THE COMMON EXTERNAL TARIFF IS UNIFORMLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED AT ALL THE FRONTIERS OF THE COMMON MARKET . THEREFORE, THE CONSULTATION AND OBSERVANCE OF THE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS PROMOTE AN APPROXIMATION OF THE PRACTICES OF THE AUTHORITIES ENTRUSTED WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .
11 ACCORDINGLY THE AIMS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IMPLY THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT COMMUNITY PROVISIONS THE ABOVEMENTIONED EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TARIFF HEADINGS CONTAINED IN REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 . THE SECOND QUESTION PUT BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF MUST THEREFORE BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE .
THE THIRD QUESTION
12 THE THIRD QUESTION IS PUT SOLELY IN THE EVENT OF A NEGATIVE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE EXAMINED .

13 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WHICH SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
14 AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE BUNDESFINANZHOF, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, BY ITS ORDER OF 25 FEBRUARY 1970, HEREBY RULES :
1 . REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 JUNE 1968 MUST BE INTERPRETED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MEMBER STATES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO ISSUE BINDING PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW AFFECTING THE SCOPE OF THE REGULATION OR OF THE TARIFF HEADINGS APPEARING THEREIN;
2 . IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS ISSUED BY THE COMMUNITY THE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE CONVENTION ON NOMENCLATURE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS IN CUSTOMS TARIFFS ARE AN AUTHORATIVE SOURCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HEADINGS TO THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .