This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/326/18
Case C-120/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Export declaration — Lack of documentary evidence — Use of other types of evidence)
Case C-120/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Export declaration — Lack of documentary evidence — Use of other types of evidence)
Case C-120/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Export declaration — Lack of documentary evidence — Use of other types of evidence)
JO C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 9–9
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-120/05) (1)
(Export refunds - Conditions for granting - Export declaration - Lack of documentary evidence - Use of other types of evidence)
(2006/C 326/18)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Finanzgericht Hamburg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L.
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (OJ 1994 L 136, p. 5) — Exporter unable to fulfil the obligation to provide the competent authorities, in support of its declaration, with all documents and information regarded by those authorities as appropriate — Documents destroyed by force majeure — Possibility of using other types of evidence.
Operative part of the judgment
The third subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 229/96 of 7 February 1996, is to be interpreted as not precluding an exporter from providing evidence by other means where it is unable to provide in support of its export declaration documentary evidence relating to the quantities of products actually used in the manufacture of exported goods, even in a case of force majeure. The national authorities are to assess that other means of evidence, in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in the national law, provided, however, that those rules do not affect either the scope or effectiveness of Community law. For that purpose, national authorities must also take into consideration documents previously exchanged with the exporter when the application is made under the simplified procedure provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 3(2) of that regulation.