This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/060/47
Case C-2/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Ausfuhrerstattung
Case C-2/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Ausfuhrerstattung
Case C-2/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Ausfuhrerstattung
OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 25–25
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
11.3.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 60/25 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Ausfuhrerstattung
(Case C-2/06)
(2006/C 60/47)
Language of the case: German
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg of 21 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Willy Kempter KG and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Ausfuhrerstattung (Main Customs Office Hamburg-Jonas, Export Refunds Section) on the following questions:
1. |
Is the review and amendment of a final administrative decision in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant Community law carried out by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the meantime subject to the requirement that the party concerned relied on Community law when contesting the administrative decision before the national courts? |
2. |
Is an application for the review and amendment of a final administrative decision which is contrary to Community law subject to a restriction in time for overriding reasons of Community law, apart from the conditions set out in Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz [2004] ECR I-837? |