Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1998:444
Date: 1998-09-29
Language of the case: English
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;Veterinary legislation
Concepts: Export refunds
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgmen t 
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Refunds paid in 
advance — Goods exported and repatriated, on account of force majeure, to the Member State of 
export — Repayment of refunds paid in advance — Obligation incumbent on the exporter — 
Beef from the United Kingdom hit by the export ban imposed by Decision 96/239 — Regulation 
No 3665/87 not permitting exporters to retain refunds paid in advance — Breach of the principles 
of force majeure, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity — None — 
Validity of Regulation No 773/96 
(Council Regulation No 565/80; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 5(1), 23 and 33, and 
Commission Regulation No 773/96; Commission Decision 96/239) 
I - 5537 
SUMMARY — CASE C-263/97 
Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation N o 3665/87 
laying down common detailed rules for the 
application of the system of export refunds 
on agricultural products, in the version thereof 
resulting from Regulation N o 1615/90, must 
be interpreted as meaning that where, as a 
result of, in particular, force majeure, goods 
do not reach their country of destination but 
are repatriated to the Member State of export, 
the exporter is obliged to repay any export 
refunds paid in advance. In such a situation, 
the formalities for release of the product for 
consumption in the country of destination 
have not been completed, so that it cannot be 
regarded, for the purposes of payment of the 
differentiated refund, as having been imported 
within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regula­
tion N o 3665/87. 
By prohibiting, in particular, exporters of beef 
from the United Kingdom from retaining all 
or part of any export refunds paid in advance 
in circumstances where 
(a) exports of beef from the United Kingdom 
to third countries have been prohibited by 
Decision 96/239 on emergency measures 
to protect against bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy, 
(b) bans on the importation of beef from the 
United Kingdom have also been imposed 
by a number of third countries, 
(c) exporters of beef were in the process of 
carrying goods to third countries on the 
date on which Decision 96/239 was 
adopted, 
(d) those exporters were forced to repatriate 
the beef to the United Kingdom, 
(e) the exporters had received, in accordance 
with Regulation N o 565/80 on the advance 
payment of export refunds in respect of 
agricultural products and Regulation 
N o 3665/87, advance payments of export 
refunds in respect of the export transac­
tions in issue, and 
(f) the exporters suffered loss as a result of 
their inability to sell their beef on the 
export markets in question, 
Regulation N o 3665/87 does not contravene 
the general principles of Community law, in 
particular the principles of force majeure, the 
protection of legitimate expectations, propor­
tionality or equity. 
Furthermore, and since none of those prin­
ciples require exporters, in the circumstances 
described, to be authorised to retain all or 
I - 5538 
THE QUEEN v INTERVENTION BOARD FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, EX PARTE FIRST CITY TRADING AND 
OTHERS 
part of any refunds, the fact that Regulation 
No 773/96 laying down special measures der­
ogating from Regulations N o 3665/87, 
N o 3719/88 and N o 1964/82 in the beef and 
veal sector does not provide for such reten­
tion does not render it invalid. 
I - 5539