JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1978 — CASE 135/77 BOSCH v HAUPTZOLLAMT HILDESHEIM

In Case 135/77 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Hamburg for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between:

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: G. Bosco, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner and A. O'Keeffe, Judges, Advocate General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

II — Summary of the written observations submitted to the Court

III — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

1. The parties in the main action disagree as to the interpretation of Artide 3 (1) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 803/68 of the Council which provides that:

2. During the public hearing of the Finanzgericht which took place after the judgment of the Court of Justice was given it was declared that the patent for a process (Verfahrenspatent) which forms the basis of the dispute may be used not only in the goods which form the subject-matter of the dispute but also in other machines which may be manufactured without using the patent for a product (Sachpatent) whereby those goods were manufactured.

II —. Summary of the written observations submitted to the Court

1. the use of the process must constitute the only appropriate use of the goods and

2. the process may only be put into effect by the use of those goods.

III —. Oral procedure

1. By order of 6 October 1977, which reached the Court on 8 November 1977, the Finanzgericht Hamburg referred to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Regulation No 803/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 170), in particular Article 3 thereof, and of the judgment given by the Court of Justice on 14 July 1977 in Case 1/77 ([1977]) ECR 1473).

2. The question asks whether the value of a patent for a process is to be included in the normal price of goods only if the process can only be put into effen by the use of those goods or whether the value of the patent for the process must also be included in the normal price if, although the only economically viable use of those goods consists in the carrying out of the process, the process can also be used in connexion with other types of goods.

3. The decision in the above-mentioned judgment already provides that:

4. The operative part of that judgment must therefore be understood in the light of that paragraph of the decision.

5. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, THE COURT (First Chamber) in answer to the question referred to it by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of 6 October 1977 hereby rules: