# C_2008079EN.01000301.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-2/06) (1)

1

(Export of cattle - Export refunds - Final administrative decision - Interpretation of a judgment of the Court - Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision - Review and withdrawal - Time-limits - Legal certainty - Principle of cooperation - Article 10 EC)

(2008/C 79/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Willy Kempter KG

Claimant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 10 of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court in Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz [2004] ECR I-837 — Review and amendment by an administrative body of an administrative decision by it that has become final in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant Community provision given in the meantime in a judgment of the Court although the person to whom the decision was addressed had not relied on infringement of that provision at the time of the initial judicial proceedings and lodged its application for review only 19 months after that judgment was delivered

Kühne & Heitz

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In the context of a procedure before an administrative body for review of an administrative decision that became final by virtue of a judgment, delivered by a court of final instance, which, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, was based on a misinterpretation of Community law, Community law does not require the claimant to have relied on Community law in the legal action under domestic law which he brought against that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the context of a procedure before an administrative body for review of an administrative decision that became final by virtue of a judgment, delivered by a court of final instance, which, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, was based on a misinterpretation of Community law, Community law does not require the claimant to have relied on Community law in the legal action under domestic law which he brought against that decision.

| 2. | Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final. The Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable time-limits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final. The Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable time-limits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---