# C_2009297EN.01001802.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) of 8 September 2009 — Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau v SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

(Case C-367/09)

2009/C 297/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

| Appellant | : | Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Respondents | : | | SGS Belgium NV |

Appellant

:

Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

Respondents

:

SGS Belgium NV

| | Firme Derwa NV |
| --- | --- |

Firme Derwa NV

| | Centraal Beheer Achmea NV |
| --- | --- |

Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Articles 5 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests have direct effect in the national legal orders of the Member States without any discretion on the part of those Member States and without the national authorities being required to adopt any measures for their implementation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Articles 5 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests have direct effect in the national legal orders of the Member States without any discretion on the part of those Member States and without the national authorities being required to adopt any measures for their implementation?

1

| 2. | Can an international control and supervisory agency approved by the Member State in which the export declaration was accepted — in this case, Belgium — which has submitted a false certificate of unloading within the meaning of Article 18(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (2) be deemed to be an economic operator within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/95, or a person who has taken part in the irregularity or is under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed, within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation No 2988/95? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can an international control and supervisory agency approved by the Member State in which the export declaration was accepted — in this case, Belgium — which has submitted a false certificate of unloading within the meaning of Article 18(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (2) be deemed to be an economic operator within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/95, or a person who has taken part in the irregularity or is under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed, within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation No 2988/95?

2

| 3. | Can a communication derived from an investigative report drawn up by the Economic Inspection Board, or a letter requesting the production of additional documents as evidence of the release for consumption, or a registered letter imposing a sanction, be deemed to be investigation or legal proceedings within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a communication derived from an investigative report drawn up by the Economic Inspection Board, or a letter requesting the production of additional documents as evidence of the release for consumption, or a registered letter imposing a sanction, be deemed to be investigation or legal proceedings within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95?

---

(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

1

(2)  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.

2

---