← Späť na vyhľadávanie
Súdny dvor Európskej únie·20.3.1997

C-201/96

ECLI:EU:C:1997:179

Súd
Súdny dvor Európskej únie
IČS
61996CC0201

ITM v FIRS

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ELMER delivered o n 20 March 1997 *

Introduction Note 1(f) in the introduction to this chapter reads as follows:

1. Are 'Alvityl 50 Dragées' and 'Strongenol 20 Ampoules' food preparations within the meaning of Chapter 21 of the Common Cus- toms Tariff ' or are they 'pharmaceutical ' 1 . This chapter does not cover: products' within the meaning of Chapter 30 thereof?

(f) yeast put up as a medicament or other products of heading N o 3003 or 3004'. That is the question on which the Court is asked to give a ruling in the present case.

The relevant provisions of Community law

Heading N o 21.06 covers 'food preparations not elsewhere specified or included'.

2. Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff covers 'miscellaneous edible preparations'.

* Original language: Danish. 1 — Council Reguládon (EEC) N o 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on 3. Chapter 30 of the Customs Tariff covers the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1). 'pharmaceutical products'.

I - 6149

O P I N I O N OF MR ELMER — CASE C-201/96

N o t e 1(a) in the introduction to Chapter 30 proteins, carbohydrates and fats. Vitamins reads as follows: and mineral salts also play a part in nutrition.

' 1 . This chapter does not cover:

(a) foods or beverages (such as dietetic, dia- betic or fortified foods, food supple- Further, this heading excludes food supple- ments, tonic beverages and mineral ments containing vitamins or mineral salts waters (Section IV)'. which are put up for the purpose of main- taining health or well-being but have no indication as to use for the prevention or treatment of any disease or ailment. These products, which are usually in liquid form, but may also be put up in powder or tablet Heading N o 30.04 comprises 'medicaments form, are generally classified in heading ... consisting of mixed or unmixed products 21.06 or Chapter 22.' for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, put u p in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale'.

4. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 210/85 of 25 January 1985 classifying goods in subheading 21.07 G I d) 1 of the Common The Explanatory Notes of the Customs Customs Tariff2 ('Regulation N o 210/85') Cooperation Council relating to heading N o provides as follows, so far as relevant: 30.04 include the following information:

'[Those products which] have the character- 'The provisions of the heading text do not istics of food supplements containing vita- apply to foodstuffs or beverages such as mins and mineral salts and intended to keep dietetic, diabetic or fortified foods, tonic beverages or mineral waters (natural or arti- ficial), which fall to be classified under their 2 — OJ 1985 L 24, p. 11, 25 amended by Commission Regulation own appropriate headings. This is essentially (EEC) N o 2723/90 of 24 September 1990 replacing the codes established on the basis of the Common Customs Tariff the case as regards food preparations con- nomenclature in force on 31 December 1987 with those taining only nutritional substances. The established on the basis of the Combined Nomenclature in certain regulations concerning the classification of goods (OJ major nutritional substances in food are 1990 L 261, p. 24).

I-6150

U M v FIRS

the body in good health and should be — biotin 100 meg regarded as food preparations [fifth recital in — iron 10 mg the preamble]. — zinc 7.5 mg — manganese 2 mg — copper 1 mg — molybdenum 150 meg — iodine 75 meg — selenium 50 meg

Article 1 — chromium 50 meg — sucrose (including invert sugar expressed as sucrose) 33% — water approximately 7% The following products for sale by retail:

(a) pills having the following composition (per pill):

shall be classified in the Common Customs Tariff under subheading N o 2106 90 99 ...'. — vitamin A 2 000 IU — vitamin C 60 mg — vitamin D 200 IU — vitamin E 12 IU 5. Council Regulation (EEC) N o 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down general rules for — vitamin Bl 1.1 mg the production refund on certain sugar prod- — vitamin B2 1.2 mg ucts used in the chemical industry, 4 as amended by Article 9 of Commission Regu- — vitamin B6 2 mg lation (EEC) N o 1714/88 of 13 June 1988 5 — niacinamide 13 mg ('Regulation N o 1010/86'), lays down rules relating to the grant of refunds to undertak- — calcium pentothenate 4.3 mg ings using sugar for the production of certain — vitamin B12 3 meg chemical products, including products covered by Chapter 30 of the Common — folic acid 50 meg 3

3 — 1 meg corresponds to 1/1000 mg, consequently 50 meg arc 4 — O ] 1986 L 94, p. 9. the equivalent of 0.05 mg. 5 — OJ 1988 L 152, p. 23.

I-6151

OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-201/96

Customs Tariff relating to 'pharmaceutical 8. At the material time, the composition of products'. an Alvityl 50 tablet was as follows:

— vitamin A 6 250 IU

The proceedings pending before the national — vitamin Bl 2.5 mg court and the questions submitted for a pre- — vitamin B2 2.5 mg liminary ruling — vitamin B5 2.5 mg — vitamin B6 0.75 mg — vitamin B8 0.025 mg — vitamin B9 0.0625 mg — vitamin B12 0.0015 mg — vitamin C 37.5 mg 6. Over the period from October 1989 to — vitamin D3 500 IU February 1991 the limited company Labora- toires de Thérapeutique Moderne ('LTM') — vitamin E 5 mg received FF 410 347.56 in production — vitamin PP 12.5 mg refunds under Regulation N o 1010/86, b y declaring Alvityl 50 tablets and Strongenol — sugar 550 mg 20 ampoules as pharmaceutical products. — cocoa 92.5 mg — excipients, flavourings, coating

The content of vitamins A and D3 was sub- sequently reduced and is at present 1 500 IU 7. However, the Fonds d'Intervention et de and 150 IU respectively. Régularisation du Marché du Sucre, which administers the aid scheme in France, refused to recognize them as pharmaceutical prod- ucts within the meaning of Chapter 30 of the Common Customs Tariff and classified them instead as products covered by Chapter 21 ('miscellaneous edible preparations'). It demanded repayment of the refunds paid Alvityl was accompanied by the following and also claimed penalties. LTM instituted information: 'this preparation is recom- proceedings against these claims before the mended for the prevention or correction of Tribunal Administratif (Administrative vitamin deficiencies due to an inadequate or Court), Paris. unbalanced diet'.

I - 6152

U M v FIRS

In the course of the proceedings LTM ALVITYL is used in non-deficiency subjects referred to an expert report of 17 August in the symptomatic treatment of general 1990 by Dr Annie Rousseau, of LTM's clini- debility. cal research and development department. This report concluded as follows:

NB: This product is not suitable for the treatment of a specific vitamin deficiency.' 'ALVITYL is indicated in certain deficiency conditions:

— restrictive or unbalanced diet regimes (low-calorie diets, strict vegetarian diets, 9. At the material time, one 10 ml ampoule etc.) of Strongenol 20 had the following composi- tion:

— chronic alcoholism

— iron 75 mg — long-term digestive disorders (malab- — amino acids 800 mg sorption) — sodium 2 mg — copper 0.2 mg — iodine 10 mg

— for pregnant women and nursing mothers — sugar 3.3 g — glycerine 2g — orange extract 4 ml — citric acid p H 4.4 — for individuals taking part in competitive sports

The addition of iodine was subsequendy — for elderly persons. omitted.

I - 6153

OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-201/%

Strongenol was accompanied by the follow- active substances and have a therapeutic pur- ing information concerning use: pose and, in any case, they have an appre- ciable effect on the body. They are pharma- ceutical products with preventive and curative properties, taken in order to restore, correct or modify organic functions and they can be purchased only from pharmacists. 'General debility or a reduction in physical Alvityl contains 50 to 150% of the recom- or mental efficiency, convalescence, over- mended daily intake of most vitamins, serves work, poor appetite, loss of weight, ageing'. to prevent or treat multi-vitamin deficiencies and is usually bought by patients on a doc- tor's prescription. Strongenol contains min- eral salts, including iodine, and serves to treat all kinds of debility. Because of its iodine content, it may be taken only on a 10. The Tribunal Administratif, Paris, stayed doctor's prescription. the proceedings and referred to the Court a question in the following terms:

'In order to resolve this dispute it is neces- sary to ascertain whether, having regard to their composition, presentation and purpose, the products "Alvityl 50 Dragées" and "Strongenol 20 Ampoules" fall within the scope of ... Council Regulation N o 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 ...'. 12. The French Government has lodged observations in support of LTM and takes the view that Alvityl 50 is a vitamin product recommended for preventing or treating vitamin deficiencies. A lack of vitamin A may give rise to serious health problems. Procedure before the Court However, if taken in excess, it has toxic effects. That is why a doctor's prescription has, since 1992, been required in France for products containing concentrations of vita- min A over 5 000 IU. A deficiency of vita- mins B l , B6, B9 and B12 and of vitamin E 11. LTM contends that Alvityl and Stron- may also lead to significant health disorders. genol are pharmaceutical products inasmuch The vitamin content of Alvityl is so high that as the French authorities issued a marketing it can be used only for therapeutic or pro- authorization for both of them. Both are put phylactic purposes. Alvityl has effects on up as pharmaceutical products as regards specific body functions and must therefore form and packaging. They both contain be regarded as a pharmaceutical product.

I - 6154

ĽTMvFIRS

Strongenol 20 was prescribed to overcome General observations iodine deficiency. Its iodine content indicates the product's therapeutic and prophylactic properties. Serious health problems may arise from both a deficiency and an excess of iodine. Strongenol 20 must be regarded as a pharmaceutical product by virtue of its iodine content. 14. It should be noted that Regulation N o 1010/86 authorizes production refunds o n sugar used for the products listed in the annex to the regulation. The annex refers t o Chapter 30, 'Pharmaceutical products', of the Common Customs Tariff, but not Chap­ ter 21, 'Miscellaneous edible preparations'. Therefore if products are in law covered b y Chapter 21, they do not fall within the ambit of the regulation. Only if products are cov­ ered by Chapter 30 will they fall within the 13. The Commission contends that as the ambit of the regulation and it is only on this body requires a sufficient daily intake of hypothesis that there will be a legal basis for vitamins, multi-vitamin tablets such as Alvi- granting the production refund. Conse­ tyl should be regarded as a necessary part of quently the issue in the case before the the diet rather than as a pharmaceutical national court is whether the products are product. This is confirmed by the explana­ covered by Chapter 30 of the Common Cus­ tory leaflet for Alvityl. The regular taking of toms Tariff and the question referred must products such as Alvityl has become a very therefore be construed as requesting inter­ widespread habit and they are consumed in pretation of that chapter. order to maintain good health.

15. The Court has consistently held that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tar­ iff classification of goods is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and Strongenol cannot be regarded as a pharma­ properties as defined in the wording of the ceutical product either. Very small quantities relevant heading of the Common Customs of metals (iron and copper), iodine and Tariff and of the notes to the sections or sodium serve, like vitamins and amino acids, chapters. It is also clear from the Court's to maintain good health and are not there­ case-law that, when construing the Common fore intended for preventing or treating ill­ Customs Tariff, the notes which head the nesses. This argument is supported by the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and explanatory leaflet for Strongenol. the Explanatory Notes to the Nomenclature

I-6155

OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-201/96

of the Customs Cooperation Council are in part — obstacles to trade in proprietary important means for ensuring the uniform medicinal products within the Community application of the Tariff throughout the whilst at the same time attaining the essential Community and as such may be regarded as objective of safeguarding public health. 9 useful aids to its interpretation: see the judg- Directive 65/65 thus permits a relatively ments in Case C-459/93 6 and Joined Cases wide range of products to come within the C-106/94 and C-139/94. 7 system of controls laid down by the legisla- tion on pharmaceutical products in order to encourage trade and at the same time to pro- tect public health. In view of the objective of consumer protection, therefore, the Court has broadly construed the first definition of the term 'medicinal product', taking the pre- sentation of the product as its starting 16. With regard to the Customs Tariff, it is point. 1 0 not necessary to examine the considerations on the basis of which a given product is clas- sified as a pharmaceutical product under Community legislation or that of the Mem- ber States relating to pharmaceutical prod- ucts. This is also clear from the general observations on Chapter 30 contained in the explanatory notes to the Common Customs Tariff, which state that 'The description of a product as a medicament in Community leg- The fact that Alvityl and Strongenol have islation ... or in the national legislation of the been marketed with the authorization of the Member States, or in any pharmacopoeia, is French authorities and are therefore deemed not the deciding factor in so far as its classi- by French law to be pharmaceutical products fication in this chapter is concerned'. does not ipso facto mean that they must also be classified as pharmaceutical products under the Common Customs Tariff.

The concept of 'pharmaceutical product' in the Common Customs Tariff therefore dif- fers from that defined in Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the 17. With regard to the concentration of approximation of provisions laid down b y certain substances in relation to the question law, regulation or administrative action relat- whether vitamin preparations are pharma- ing to proprietary medicinal products. 8 That ceutical products, the Court made the directive was designed to eliminate — at least

9 — Sec the judgment in Case 227/82 Van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883. 6 — Hanptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen v Thyssen Hantti Logistic 10 — See the Van Bennekom judgment, cited in footnote 9, para- [1995] ECR 1-1381. graph 17, Case C-112/89 Upjohn [1991] ECR 1-1703, para- 7 — Colin and Dupri [1995] ECR 1-4759. graph 16, and Case C-219/91 Ter Voort [1992] ECR 1-5485, 8 — OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20. paragraph 16.

I - 6156

LTM v FIRS

following observations in the Van Bennekom Observations concerning Alvityl in particu- judgment: lar

'It is, however, apparent from the file and from the observations submitted to the Court, taken as a whole, that it is impossible 19. With regard to the tariff classification of in the present state of scientific knowledge to Alvityl, some guidance is given by Regu- state whether the criterion of concentration lation N o 210/85, which provides that multi- alone is always sufficient in order to be able vitamin and mineral pills with a specified to determine whether a vitamin preparation composition must be classified as food constitutes a medicinal product; still less preparations. The fifth recital in the pre- therefore is it possible to specify the level of amble to this regulation states that these concentration above which such a vitamin products have the characteristics of a food preparation would fall within the Commu- supplement containing vitamins and mineral nity definition of a medicinal product.' u salts and intended to keep the body in good (paragraph 28). health and that they should therefore be regarded as food preparations. The vitamin and mineral salt content indicated in Regu- lation N o 210/85 corresponds in large meas- ure to the recommendations of the Scientific Committee for Foodstuffs. 13 18. For the purpose of the tariff classifica- tion of a product as a pharmaceutical prod- uct, it must be assumed that the decisive cri- terion is whether the product has a therapeutic or prophylactic application. The wording of heading N o 30.04 of the Com- mon Customs Tariff and the explanatory notes thereon are very clear on this point. 20. The composition of Alvityl corresponds, The Court adopted the same approach in its so far as certain vitamins are concerned, t o judgment in Case C-177/91, 1 2 in which it the figures given in Regulation N o 210/85 found that 'hawthorn drops' should be clas- and mentioned in the recommendations of sified under heading N o 30.04 because that the Scientific Committee. This fact supports product had clearly defined therapeutic and, the argument that Alvityl is in principle a above all, prophylactic characteristics, the food product in the same way as the pills effect of which was concentrated on precise referred to in Regulation N o 210/85. functions of the human organism, namely the cardiac, circulatory and neuro-vegetative functions. 13 — Reports of the Sdentine Committee for Foodstuffs (Series 31). Food and Energy Supplements in the European Com- munity (report delivered on 11 December 1992). The values indicated relate to adults, men and women respectively. The Scientific Committee described these values as 'reference 11 — The case concerned the concept of 'medicinal product' in intakes for the populaùon'. This term means the intake Council Directive 65/65/EEC. which is sufficient for practically everyone in good health in 12 — Bioforce [1993] ECR 1-45, in particular paragraph 13. a given group.

I-6157

OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-201/96

21. So far as certain other vitamins are con- 22. The question, therefore, is whether this cerned, Alvityl contains quantities smaller initial presumption may be altered by reason than those mentioned in the regulation and of the fact that Alvityl has a relatively higher recommended by the Scientific Committee. content of certain other vitamins than that The fact that Alvityl contains some indicated in Regulation N o 210/85 and in the substances in a smaller proportion than in recommendations of the Scientific Commit- the case of the pills referred to in Regulation tee. The table below shows the vitamins and N o 210/85 cannot, however, lead to the con- minerals which appear in a higher concentra- clusion that Alvityl is a pharmaceutical prod- tion in Alvityl than in the product referred uct, but merely offers further support for the to in Regulation N o 210/85: initial presumption that it must be regarded as a food preparation.

Regulation Committee Alvityl N o 210/85 Scientific

Vitamin A (IU) 6 250 2 000 2 000-2 330

Vitamin Bl (mg) 2.5 1.1 0.9-1.1

Vitamin B2 (mg) 2.5 1.2 1.3-1.6

Vitamin B9 (mg) 0.0625 0.05 0.2

Vitamin D (IU) 500 200 400

23. As the table shows, Alvityl has a vitamin health. 1 4 On the other hand, this does not A content approximately three times that of appear to be the case with regard to vitamins the pills referred to in Regulation N o 210/85 B l , B2 and B9, which are also contained in and recommended by the Scientific Commit- Alvityl in greater proportions than in the tee. Moreover, Alvityl tablets contain more pills referred to in Regulation N o 210/85. vitamin D than the pills referred to in the regulation. The higher content of these vita- mins is noteworthy in that both vitamins A 14 — According to information supplied after the material time and D can be taken in excessive quantities in the present case, the content of vitamins A and D in Alvityl has been reduced to 1 500 and 150 IU respectively and this can have a detrimental effect o n to avoid the risk of hyper-vitaminosis (overdose).

I-6158

ĽTM v FIRS

24. In my opinion, the abovementioned of general debility in subjects not suffering basic presumption that Alvityl is to be from a deficiency. O n the other hand, Alvityl treated as a food preparation of the kind is not suitable for treating a specific vitamin referred to in Regulation N o 210/85 must be deficiency. upheld and it cannot be deemed to be a phar­ maceutical product merely because it has a higher content of vitamins A, Bl, B2 and D than the pills covered by Regulation N o 210/85. 1 5 In particular, with regard to the higher vitamin A content, it should be observed that a number of ordinary foods 27. Alvityl is therefore not intended to be (food preparations) also have a high content used in the prevention or treatment of defi­ of vitamin A or provitamin A, which the ciencies of specific vitamins. N o r is it appro­ human body can convert into vitamin A. As priate to be taken in order to obtain a high a comparison to the vitamin A content of dosage of a specific vitamin as at the same Alvityl (6 250IU), 100 g of calf liver contain time it entails the absorption of the other 16 670 IU of vitamin A, and 100 g of carrots vitamins which are in the product and some contain up to 5 550 I U of vitamin A (in the of which may be taken in overdose. F o r form of beta-carotene, which is a provita­ example, to treat night blindness resulting min). 1 6 from a deficiency of vitamin A, 30 000 IU o r 50 000 I U of vitamin A are taken daily for a certain period. If six or eight Alvityl tables are taken instead each day for the same period, however, this will give rise to an overdose of vitamin D.

25. A comparison between the composition of Alvityl and that of the pills mentioned in Regulation N o 210/85 is therefore decisively in favour of the argument that Alvityl is a food, in the same way as the pills referred to in that regulation. Alvityl is thus not intended for specific pro­ phylactic or therapeutic use, as required by the Bioforce judgment cited above, and is in any case not suitable for that purpose.

26. As appears from the abovementioned report by Dr Rousseau, Alvityl is also used in the treatment of certain deficiencies, including those connected with an unbal­ anced diet, and in the treatment of symptoms 28. Consequently Alvityl cannot be classi­ fied under Chapter 30 of the Common Cus­ toms Tariff dealing with pharmaceutical 15 — On this point, see the Van Bennekom judgment, cited products, but must be regarded as a food above in footnote 9. preparation within the meaning of Chapter 16 — Source: Tableau des Calories, Anne Noel, Ed. S. A. E. P., Ingersheim, 1988. 21.

I-6159

OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-201/96

Observations concerning Strongenol in par- Strongenol cannot be considered a pharma- ticular ceutical product either.

30. In addition to the copper just men- tioned, Strongenol also contains sodium, 29. Strongenol contains no vitamins and iron and iodine. Sodium is not listed in the only some of the numerous minerals which pills referred to in Regulation N o 210/85. By the body requires. The vitamins and most of analogy with Alvityl and the proportions of the minerals in the tablets indicated as being certain vitamins it contains, Strongenol also food preparations for the purposes of Regu- has a higher iron and iodine content than the lation N o 210/85 are therefore not present at food preparations referred to in Regulation all in Strongenol, which also has only a low N o 210/85 and than that recommended by copper content. In principle, therefore, the Scientific Committee, namely:

Regulation Committee Strongenol N o 210/85 Scientific

Iron (mg) 75 10 9-20

Iodine (mg) 10 0.075 0.13

31. In my opinion, however, Strongenol can- 32. The information in the leaflet accompa- not be considered a pharmaceutical product nying Strongenol indicated its use in cases of simply because it contains sodium and has a debility, reduced physical and mental effi- higher iron and iodine content than the pills ciency, convalescence, overwork, poor appe- indicated as food preparations under Regu- tite, loss of weight and ageing. These are lation N o 210/85 and than that recom- widely differing conditions, defined in a very mended by the Scientific Committee. , 7 general manner, and are not in themselves ill- nesses or disorders, but merely more or less diffuse states of weakness. Strongenol was likewise not indicated as being applicable in 17 — At some time after the material period in this case, LTM the prevention or treatment of any disease or eliminated iodine altogether from the composition of the product. ailment, as required by the Explanatory

I-6160

ĽTM v FIRS

Notes relating to heading N o 30.04 of the 33. For these reasons Strongenol cannot Common Customs Tariff and, furthermore, be classified for tariff purposes under this product had no specific therapeutic or heading N o 30.04 or any other heading of prophylactic effect either, as required by the Chapter 30. Bioforce judgment.

Conclusion

34. In view of the foregoing, I p r o p o s e t h a t t h e C o u r t give the following reply t o the q u e s t i o n s u b m i t t e d for a preliminary ruling:

T h e C o m m o n C u s t o m s Tariff m u s t b e i n t e r p r e t e d as m e a n i n g t h a t t h e t e r m ' p h a r ­ maceutical p r o d u c t s ' used in C h a p t e r 30 d o e s n o t i n c l u d e p r o d u c t s having t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e p r o d u c t s w h i c h are t h e subject of t h i s case.

I-6161

Text rozhodnutia bol prevzatý z verejne dostupných úradných zdrojov. Rozhodnutie je úradným dokumentom.
Navrhy_ga C-201/96 – Súdny dvor Európskej únie | AI Pravnik