EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2007/211/28

Case C-278/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

OJ C 211, 8.9.2007, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.9.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/15


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-278/07)

(2007/C 211/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred

1.

Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests be applied even if an irregularity was committed or ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 entered into force?

2.

Is the limitation period prescribed in that provision applicable in general to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregularities?

If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

3.

May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State even if such a longer period was already provided for in the law of the Member State before the abovementioned regulation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regulated (‘catch-all’ provision)?


(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


Top