Judgments nº C-35/75 of Court of Justice of the European Communities, October 23, 1975
Linked as:
Summary
1 . ALTHOUGH THE COURT IN RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO APPLY THE COMMUNITY RULE TO A SPECIFIC CASE, IT MAY HOWEVER SUPPLY THE NATIONAL COURTS WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION RELATING TO COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MAY BE USEFUL IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE . 2 . IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ON THE SUBJECT, THE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND THE CLASSIFICATION 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 . 3 . THE PHRASE 'MECHANICALLY PROPELLED' IN HEADING 86.04 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF MUST BE INTERPRETED AS COVERING SELF-PROPELLED VEHICLES FOR TRACK MAINTENANCE, EQUIPPED WITH ONE OR MORE ENGINES ENABLING THE VEHICLE TO MOVE ABOUT FROM PLACE TO PLACE RAPIDLY ON THE TRACK AND QUITE INDEPENDENTLY .
See the full content of this document
Extract
Judgments nº C-35/75 of Court of Justice of the European Communities, October 23, 1975
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF HEADINGS 86.04 B AND 84.23 A II B OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 JUNE 1968 ( OJ L 172 OF 22 . 7 . 1968, P . 1 ). Grounds1 BY ORDER DATED 19 MARCH 1975, WHICH ARRIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 1 APRIL 1975, THE FINANZGERIC...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
