|
25.2.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 48/8 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(First Chamber)
of 1 December 2005
in Case C-309/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
(Export refunds - Condition for grant - Beef and veal - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Export ban - Sound and fair marketable quality - Export declaration - National application for a payment - Sanction)
(2006/C 48/15)
Language of the case: German
In Case C-309/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by Decision of 20 April 2004, received at the Court on 21 July 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
|
1. |
Article 13 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 amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes beef that is subject to a ban, laid down by Community law, on export from one Member State to other Member States and non-member countries from being regarded as being of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ for the purpose of the payment of refunds, and that the exporter must show that the exported product does not originate in a Member State from which exports are banned, where the national administration has evidence that the product is subject to an export ban. |
|
2. |
The assurance in a national request for payment that a product is of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, is not part of the information provided pursuant to the combined provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) and Article 3 of that regulation. However, it may be regarded by the national court as evidence for the purpose of determining the exporter's position. |