Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2294
Date: 2014-10-16
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 October 2014 1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Presentation of the export declaration for the goods before they leave the customs territory — Exporter not having a valid export licence at the date on which the declaration was accepted — Presentation of the licence within an additional period granted by the competent authority — Refund entitlement (Commission Regulations No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, Art. 4(1) and No 1291/2000, Art. 24) 2. Customs union — Customs declarations — Ex post checks — Grant by the customs office of export of an additional period for presentation of the export licence — Whether binding on the customs office responsible for paying the export refund — Conditions — A matter for the national court to ascertain (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 4(5)) 3. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Production of documentary evidence — Time-limit in the legislation exceeded — Loss of the refund entitlement — Exception — Force majeure — Meaning — Forgery of the documents by a contracting party of the exporter — Not included (Commission Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, Arts 49 and 50) 4. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Inaccurate declaration as a result of the fraudulent conduct of a contracting party — Penalty — No fault committed by the exporter — No effect (Commission Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, Art. 51(1)(a) and (3)) 1. Article 4(1) of Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, read in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation No 1291/2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of an export refund in specific circumstances such as those in which the export took place without an export licence, whose existence was however established at the time the export declaration was made and which was presented, by the exporter, within the additional period of one week granted for that purpose by the competent customs office. Although the presentation of the export licence constitutes an essential element of the system of checks of applications for refunds, presentation of the export licence at the time of acceptance of the export declaration is not, in all cases, an essential condition for grant of the export refund, on the condition, however, that the objectives of the EU legislation on export refunds should not be compromised and that it should have been possible for the competent authorities to make the physical checks. (see paras 33, 39, 43, operative part 1) 2. The customs legislation of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the customs office responsible for paying an export refund is bound by a decision of the customs office of export, such as a decision granting an additional period for the presentation of an export licence, if that decision fulfils all the formal and substantive conditions of a ‘decision’ provided for both by Article 4(5) of Regulation No 2913/1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and by the relevant provisions of the national law concerned. It is for the national court to determine whether the decision at issue satisfies those conditions. (see paras 41, 42) 3. Articles 49 and 50 of Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of force majeure, an exporter who has presented, in order to prove the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination, customs documents that are later shown to be forged, may not, after periods laid down in those articles have expired, present, in the course of pending judicial proceedings relating to the grant of the export refund, valid customs documents, even though the grant of the export refund was delayed for reasons other than those relating to the proof of arrival of those goods. No refund is granted if the time-limits for export and for submitting the proof required for obtaining payment of the refund are not complied with. In that regard, failure to observe procedural rules laid down in the legislation can lead to the reduction, even the loss, of the rights to an export refund, this being the case, in particular, when an exporter does not produce the necessary evidence to obtain the export refund until after the expiry of the periods referred to in Articles 49(2) and 50(2) of Regulation No 800/1999. That conclusion is not called into question by the fact that the presentation out of time of proof of the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination had no effect on the handling of the procedure for grant of the export refund, that procedure being delayed for reasons other than those relating to the proof of that arrival. Furthermore, the duration of the investigations carried out by the competent national authorities making it possible to ascertain that the documents certifying the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination were forged is not to be equiparated to a case of force majeure, within the meaning of Article 49(2) of Regulation No 800/1999, inasmuch as delays by the national authorities may constitute a case of force majeure where they are administrative in nature and beyond the control of the exporter. Even if the fault or error committed by a contracting partner of the exporter could constitute a circumstance beyond the exporter’s control, the fact remains that this is an ordinary commercial risk and cannot be considered to be unforeseeable in the context of commercial transactions. The exporter is fully at liberty to select his trading partners and it is up to him to take the appropriate precautions, either by including the necessary clauses in the contracts which he concludes with them or by effecting appropriate insurance. (see paras 52, 53, 55-57, operative part 2) 4. On a proper construction of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, the penalty provided for in that provision is incurred when the exporter presented, within the prescribed periods, documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination that were shown to have been forged, even though it is apparent from the valid documents produced during the proceedings that the export refund applied for corresponds to that which would have had to be granted. Since the liability on which the penalty provided for in Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 800/1999 is based is essentially objective in nature, the reduction of the refund mentioned in that provision must be applied even if the exporter has not committed any fault. In that regard, where, on account of the forgery of documents by a contracting party, the exporter concerned did not present within the prescribed periods all the documents required by the legislation at issue, the penalty in Article 51(1)(a) must be imposed on it, unless one of the exceptions in the exhaustive list in Article 51(3) of that regulation applies, a list to which no new exception may be added on the basis, in particular, of lack of fault on the part of the exporter. (see paras 60, 62, 63, operative part 3)