Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:779
Date: 2012-12-06
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Beef and veal;Monetary measures in the field of agriculture
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 December 2012 1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Incorrect declaration — Penalty — No criminal character — Declaration made in good faith –Objective liability of the exporter — Application of the penalty (Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 8 11(1), first para.) 2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Incorrect declaration — Penalty — Inapplicability in the event of force majeure — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 11, first para., third para.) 1. Article 11(1) 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 and Regulation No 495/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the exemptions laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1), the reduction referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) must be applied, inter alia, in the case where it turns out that the goods for export in respect of which a refund was requested were not of sound and fair marketable quality, notwithstanding the fact that the exporter acted in good faith and correctly described the nature and origin of those goods. That reduction mechanism consists in imposing the payment of a penalty, the amount of which is determined in proportion to the amount which would have been unduly received by the exporter had the requested refund been granted. It concerns a penalty which forms an integral part of the export refund scheme and is not criminal in nature. The liability on which that penalty is based is essentially objective in nature. It follows that the reduction must be applied even if the exporter has not committed any fault, he acted in good faith and gave an exact description of the nature and origin of the goods at issue in his export declarations. (see paras 25, 26, 28, 37, operative part) 2. The concept of force majeure in the sphere of agricultural regulations, and in particular having regard to the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) 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 and by Regulation No 495/97, which indicate the cases where the reduction of the export refund on the ground of an exporter’s incorrect declaration does not apply, must be construed as referring to abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of the trader concerned, whose consequences could not have been avoided in spite of the exercise of all due care. (see para. 32)