# C_2014142EN.01001302.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-59/14)

2014/C 142/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In a case where the infringement of a provision of Community law was discovered only after the occurrence of prejudice, does the irregularity which is necessary for the commencement of the limitation period under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) and which is defined in Article 1(2) of that regulation presuppose, in addition to an act or omission by the economic operator, that the general budget of the European Union or budgets managed by the European Union were prejudiced, so that the limitation period begins to run only after the occurrence of the prejudice, or does the limitation period begin, irrespective of when the prejudice occurs, with the act or omission of the economic operator which constitutes an infringement of a provision of Community law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In a case where the infringement of a provision of Community law was discovered only after the occurrence of prejudice, does the irregularity which is necessary for the commencement of the limitation period under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) and which is defined in Article 1(2) of that regulation presuppose, in addition to an act or omission by the economic operator, that the general budget of the European Union or budgets managed by the European Union were prejudiced, so that the limitation period begins to run only after the occurrence of the prejudice, or does the limitation period begin, irrespective of when the prejudice occurs, with the act or omission of the economic operator which constitutes an infringement of a provision of Community law?

1

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is that the limitation period does not begin until the occurrence of the prejudice:
  In connection with a demand for repayment of an export refund which has been definitively granted, is there already prejudice within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 when an amount equal to the export refund within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 565/80 has been paid to the exporter, without the security under Article 6 of that regulation having already been released, or is there no prejudice until the release of the security or the definitive grant of the export refund? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is that the limitation period does not begin until the occurrence of the prejudice:

In connection with a demand for repayment of an export refund which has been definitively granted, is there already prejudice within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 when an amount equal to the export refund within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 565/80 has been paid to the exporter, without the security under Article 6 of that regulation having already been released, or is there no prejudice until the release of the security or the definitive grant of the export refund?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

1

---