# C_2006096EN.01000602.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 23 January 2006 in Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-96/06)

(2006/C 96/10)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) of 23 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

| 1. | Does Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 (1) constitute an exclusion, with the consequence that the burden of proof in respect of the requirements of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 is on the Principal Customs Office? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 (1) constitute an exclusion, with the consequence that the burden of proof in respect of the requirements of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 is on the Principal Customs Office?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: In order to conclude under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 that the directive has not been complied with, is it necessary to have proof that there has been an infringement of Directive 91/628/EEC (2) in the particular case, or does the competent authority discharge its burden of proof if it relies on and provides evidence of circumstances which in an overall view indicate a material probability that the directive on the protection of animals during transport has not been complied with (also) in relation to the export consignment in question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: In order to conclude under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 that the directive has not been complied with, is it necessary to have proof that there has been an infringement of Directive 91/628/EEC (2) in the particular case, or does the competent authority discharge its burden of proof if it relies on and provides evidence of circumstances which in an overall view indicate a material probability that the directive on the protection of animals during transport has not been complied with (also) in relation to the export consignment in question?

2

| 3. | Irrespective of the answers to questions 1 and 2: May the competent authority refuse to pay (all of) the export refund to the exporter under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 where there are no indications that the (potential) infringement of Directive 91/628/EEC has in fact been deleterious to the wellbeing of the animals during transport in relation to the export consignment in question? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Irrespective of the answers to questions 1 and 2: May the competent authority refuse to pay (all of) the export refund to the exporter under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 where there are no indications that the (potential) infringement of Directive 91/628/EEC has in fact been deleterious to the wellbeing of the animals during transport in relation to the export consignment in question?

---

(1)  OJ L 82 of 19.3.1998, p. 19.

1

(2)  OJ L 240 of 11.12.1991, p. 17.

2

---