Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2005:732
Date: 2005-12-01
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Beef and veal;Monetary measures in the field of agriculture
Concepts: Export refunds
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Conditions for grant – Products of sound and fair marketable quality – Meaning – Meat which could not be marketed under normal conditions – Not included – Meat subject to an export ban from a certain Member State – National administration having evidence that the product originates in that Member State – Exporter’s obligations regarding proof (Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 13) 2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Information issued in accordance with the provisions for calculating the refund requested and the document used to qualify for a refund – Confirmation that the products are of sound and fair marketable quality in the request for payment – Not included – Effect of such a confirmation before the national court (Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 3, 11(1), subpara. 2, and 13, first sentence) 1. Article 13 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes beef that is subject to a ban laid down by Community law on exports from one Member State to other Member States and non-member countries from being regarded as being of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’, and that it requires, for the purpose of the payment of refunds, the exporter to show that the exported product does not originate in a Member State from which exports are banned, where the national administration has evidence that the product is subject to an export ban. First, since such meat cannot be marketed in normal conditions, it does not satisfy those quality requirements. Secondly, in so far as the exporter, by lodging an application for a refund, continues to assert either expressly or impliedly that the conditions for the grant of a refund are satisfied, including that it is of ‘sound and fair marketing quality’, it is for the exporter, according to the rules of evidence of national law, to prove that that condition is in fact satisfied if the declaration is questioned by the national authorities. (see paras 20, 25, 32, 35, 37-38, operative part 1) 2. The assurance in a national request for payment, referred to in Article 47 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, that a product is of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, is not part of the information provided pursuant to the combined provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) and Article 3 of that regulation, which deals with the refund requested and the document used in order to qualify for a refund. However, it may be regarded by the national court as evidence for the purpose of determining the exporter’s position. The request for a refund, within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, is not submitted by lodging an application for payment, within the meaning of Article 47, because it does not constitute the legal basis of entitlement to such payment. Furthermore, it is the documents referred to in Article 3(5) of that regulation, namely the export declaration or any other document used during export, which are capable of forming the legal basis of a refund and triggering the system of checks of the request for refund which may lead to the application of a sanction, in accordance with Article 11(1). (see paras 40-41, 43, operative part 2)