Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010CN0402

Case C-402/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 6 August 2010 — Société Groupe Limagrain Holding v FranceAgrimer

OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 22–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/22


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 6 August 2010 — Société Groupe Limagrain Holding v FranceAgrimer

(Case C-402/10)

()

2010/C 288/37

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Groupe Limagrain Holding

Respondent: FranceAgriMer

Questions referred

1.

Is the failure, in disregard of the obligations imposed on the warehouse keeper under the Community customs legislation, to keep stock records of products or goods placed under the customs warehousing procedure sufficient to deprive the exporter who has placed his products or his goods in that warehouse of entitlement to the advance payment provided for by the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 (1) relating to the system of export refunds in conjunction with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products (2)?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what conclusions should be drawn as regards the sums paid to the recipient?

In particular:

(a)

in the event that it is proved that the goods have actually been exported, can the exporter be regarded as having obtained the amount of the refunds relating to those exports, wholly or in part; if in part, is it appropriate to adopt the rates of refunds as pre-established under the regulations relating to advance payment of export refunds or the rates applicable on the date of actual exportation, whether higher or lower than the pre-established rate?

(b)

in the event that there is an obligation to repay all or part of the sums received, is it appropriate, pursuant to Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 relating to the system of export refunds, to add, to the amount to be repaid as unduly received, the penalty provided for by that article, although the responsibility for keeping stock records rests with the warehouse keeper, where, as in the present case, the customs warehouse is a type C private warehouse maintained by the exporter of the agricultural goods himself?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1)

(2)  OJ 1980 L 62, p. 5


Top