Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
RUMA GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (C-183/06)
Judgment
The question referred for a preliminar…
The Court's answer
31

RUMA GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (C-183/06)

Judgment of 15 Feb 2007law://eu/cjeu/2006/c-183-06/para_31@2026-11-11

31It must be borne in mind that the term ‘part’ implies a whole for the operation of which the part is essential (Peacock, paragraph 21, and Case 0276/00 Turbon International [2002] ECR I-1389, paragraph 30).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fifth Chamber
Case: C-183/06 · ECLI:EU:C:2007:110
Decided: 15 Feb 2007
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Finanzgericht München (Germany)
Applicant: RUMA GmbH
Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
Rapporteur: A. Borg Barthet
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak
Bench: 3 judges
R. Schintgen, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62006CJ0183

Topics

Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff

History · 1 version

15 Feb 2007Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
Cited by 16: KAHL G.m.b.H. & Co. K.G. v Hauptzollamt Hannover and C.E. Roeper GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-197/20); Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S (C-138/18)2 provisions; Schenker Nemzetközi Szállítmányozási és Logisztikai Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (C-409/14); Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (C-198/15); Sysmex Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (C-480/13); Panasonic Italia SpA and Others v Agenzia delle Dogane di Milano (C-472/12); Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt München (C-297/13)2 provisions; X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-380/12)2 provisions; HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-450/12)2 provisions; Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (C-568/11)2 provisions; Digitalnet OOD and Others v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna (C-320/11, C-330/11, C-382/11, C-383/11)2 provisions; Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV (C-291/11)2 provisions; Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet (C-152/10); British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Pace plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-288/09, C-289/09)2 provisions; Lecson Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund (C-12/10)2 provisions; Skoma-Lux s. r. o. v Celní ředitelství Olomouc (C-339/09)
Cites 9: Intermodal Transports BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-495/03); DFDS BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst - Douanedistrict Rotterdam (C-396/02); 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; Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen v Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH (C-459/93); Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff; Turbon International GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (C-276/00); Possehl Erzkontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-445/04); Telefunken Fernseh und Rundfunk GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion München (223/84); Peacock AG v Hauptzollamt Paderborn (C-339/98)