This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/183/13
Case C-428/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Definition of undue payment of a refund — Payment of a refund on the basis of incomplete documentation — Possibility of completing the documents relating to the payment of the refund after the expiry of the periods referred to in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 in the context of a subsequent recovery procedure)
Case C-428/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Definition of undue payment of a refund — Payment of a refund on the basis of incomplete documentation — Possibility of completing the documents relating to the payment of the refund after the expiry of the periods referred to in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 in the context of a subsequent recovery procedure)
Case C-428/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Definition of undue payment of a refund — Payment of a refund on the basis of incomplete documentation — Possibility of completing the documents relating to the payment of the refund after the expiry of the periods referred to in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 in the context of a subsequent recovery procedure)
SL C 183, 4.8.2007, p. 8–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.8.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 183/8 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-428/05) (1)
(Export refunds - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Definition of ‘undue payment of a refund’ - Payment of a refund on the basis of incomplete documentation - Possibility of completing the documents relating to the payment of the refund after the expiry of the periods referred to in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 in the context of a subsequent recovery procedure)
(2007/C 183/13)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Finanzgericht Hamburg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 11(3), subparagraph 1, first sentence, Article 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of 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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12) — Concept of ‘undue payment of a refund’ — Recovery of refunds awarded on production of an incomplete transport document, the duly completed document having been produced only after expiry of the time-limits
Operative part of the judgment
An export refund can not be regarded as ‘unduly paid’, within the meaning of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 11(3) of 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, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 604/98 of 17 March 1998, if the beneficiary, in the context of a recovery procedure for the refund, produces the necessary evidence to justify its right to that refund. It is a matter for the competent national authorities to set a reasonable time-limit which allows the beneficiary to produce this evidence.