Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2018:240
Date: 2018-04-12
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Beef and veal;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 August 2018 1. EU law — Principles — Principle of retroactive application of the lightest penalty — Conditions under which applicable (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 49(1)) 2. EU law — Principles — Principle of retroactive application of the lightest penalty — Imposition of a penalty on a person having made false declarations or having engaged in deceitful practices in order to secure export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat — Subsequent amendment of the eligibility conditions for refunds to confer entitlement to those refunds in respect of the goods covered by the original application — No infringement (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 49(1); Commission Regulations No 1964/82, Art. 1 and No 2469/97, Recital 2) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 26, 33) 2. The principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, enshrined in the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a situation in which a person is convicted on the ground that he wrongfully obtained special export refunds provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals, by means of deceitful practices or the making of false statements as to the nature of the goods in respect of which the refunds were requested, although, as a result of changes in those rules which occurred subsequent to the acts complained of, the goods that were exported by that person have since become eligible for those refunds. It should be noted, first, that, as is apparent from the file submitted to the Court, since the commission of the offence at issue in the main proceedings, the offence referred to in Article 426(4) of the Customs Code has not been amended by the French legislature. False declarations or deceitful practices having the effect of securing an advantage relating to exports, such as a special export refund under Regulation No 1964/82, therefore remain a criminal offence in the same manner as at the time of the events at issue in the main proceedings. Second, as regards the amendment of the rules of EU law referred to in paragraph 31 of this judgment, it should be noted that, as is apparent from the second recital of Regulation No 2469/97, the introduction of a special export refund for boned cuts from forequarters of adult male cattle was aimed at adapting those rules to the changing realities of the meat market, and in particular to reflect the situation on the world market following the implementation of the agreements concluded in the framework of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Consequently, the choice of the EU legislature to amend the eligibility criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation No 1964/82 was based on a purely economic and technical assessment of the situation on the world meat market. (see paras 34, 36, 37, 41, operative part)