# C_2005257EN.01000102.xml

| 15.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/1

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Vonk Dairy Products B.V., Ittevoort v Productschap Zuivel

(Case C-279/05)

(2005/C 257/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Vonk Dairy Products B.V. and Productschap Zuivel on the following questions:

| 1. | Should Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), as applicable at the material time, be interpreted as meaning that, if variable refunds are definitively paid after acceptance of the import documents, subsequent evidence that the goods have been re-exported may lead to the conclusion that the refunds have been wrongly paid only in the event of abuse on the part of the exporter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), as applicable at the material time, be interpreted as meaning that, if variable refunds are definitively paid after acceptance of the import documents, subsequent evidence that the goods have been re-exported may lead to the conclusion that the refunds have been wrongly paid only in the event of abuse on the part of the exporter?

1

| 2. | If question 1 must be answered in the negative, what criteria apply to enable it to be established when the re-exportation of goods necessarily leads to the conclusion that definitively paid variable refunds were wrongly paid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 must be answered in the negative, what criteria apply to enable it to be established when the re-exportation of goods necessarily leads to the conclusion that definitively paid variable refunds were wrongly paid?

| 3. | What criteria apply to enable it to be established whether there has been a continuous or repeated irregularity as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (2)? The College would particularly like to know whether a continuous or repeated irregularity is deemed to have occurred where the irregularity relates to a relatively small proportion of all transactions in a given period and the transactions in which an irregularity has been detected always concern different consignments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

What criteria apply to enable it to be established whether there has been a continuous or repeated irregularity as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (2)? The College would particularly like to know whether a continuous or repeated irregularity is deemed to have occurred where the irregularity relates to a relatively small proportion of all transactions in a given period and the transactions in which an irregularity has been detected always concern different consignments.

2

---

(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 L 351, p. 1).

1

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

2

---