62020CJ0415_RES
Joined Cases C‑415/20, C‑419/20 and C‑427/20
Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbHandF. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH
v
Hauptzollamt Hamburg
and
Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG
v
Hauptzollamt Kiel
(requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 28 April 2022
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law – Anti-dumping duties, import duties, export refunds and financial penalties – Concept of ‘breach of EU law’ – Misinterpretation or misapplication of EU law – Finding of a breach of EU law by a Court of the European Union or by a national court – Right to the payment of interest – Period covered by that payment of interest)
EU law – Rights conferred on individuals – Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law – Right to the payment of interest on those sums of money – Scope – Export refunds refused in breach of EU law and granted late – Financial penalty imposed as a result of that breach – Included
(see paragraphs 51, 52, 54, 56-59, 85, operative part)
EU law – Rights conferred on individuals – Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law – Right to the payment of interest on those sums of money – Concept of breach of EU law – Misinterpretation or misapplication of EU law by a national authority – Finding of a breach of EU law by a Court of the European Union or by a national court – Included
(see paragraphs 60-64, 66, 69, 85, operative part)
EU law – Rights conferred on individuals – Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law – Right to the payment of interest on those sums of money – Detailed rules – Application of national law – Conditions – Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Exclusion of interest for the period prior to the bringing of legal proceedings seeking the payment or repayment of the sum of money in question – Not permissible – Obligation to bring legal proceedings – Whether permissible – Limits
(see paragraphs 73-77, 79-81, 84, 85, operative part)
Résumé
The German customs authorities imposed on three companies established in Germany the payment of various sums of money in connection with, respectively, the export of poultry carcasses to third countries, the import of metal fasteners and the import of bolt hooks into the European Union. In various actions, the German courts subsequently found that the measures adopted by the customs authorities in respect of those three companies were based on an interpretation of provisions of EU law which did not correspond to the Court’s case-law or on an incorrect application of those provisions.
Following those decisions, the competent customs authority paid the first company – Gräfendorfer (Case C‑415/20) – the export refunds initially refused to it and repaid it for the financial penalty imposed on it in connection with that refusal, without, however, paying interest on those sums. The other two companies, Reyher (Case C‑419/20) and Flexi Montagetechnik (Case C‑427/20), obtained, respectively, the repayment of the amounts of anti-dumping duties and of import duties which they had paid. However, the customs authorities paid only part of the interest on those amounts, refusing to pay interest, in the case of the second company, in respect of the period prior to the repayment and, in the case of the third company, for the period prior to the date on which that company brought legal proceedings.
Since none of the three companies obtained full payment of the interest claimed, each of them brought an action before the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg, Germany). In that context, that court raises several questions on the scope, in the present case, of the principles identified by the Court in its case-law relating to the repayment of sums of money levied by Member States in breach of EU law and to the payment of the corresponding interest.
With requests having been made for a preliminary ruling, the Court rules that those principles apply inter alia, first, in respect of export refunds refused in breach of EU law and granted late and, second, in respect of a financial penalty imposed as a result of such a breach. Furthermore, those principles apply where it follows from a decision of the Court or a national court that the payment of such export refunds, such a financial penalty, or anti-dumping or import duties has been refused or imposed as a result of a breach of EU law, understood as an incorrect interpretation or incorrect application of EU law. In such cases, national law cannot exclude from the payment of interest the period prior to the bringing of legal proceedings seeking the payment or repayment of the sum of money in question. However, under certain conditions, the payment of interest could possibly be conditional on the bringing of such proceedings.
Findings of the Court
First of all, the Court recalls that, under the general principle of recovery of sums paid but not due, any person on whom a national authority has imposed the payment of a tax, duty, charge or other levy in breach of EU law has the right, under EU law, to obtain from the Member State concerned the repayment of the sum of money levied though not due and the payment of interest intended to compensate for the unavailability of that sum.
Those rights thus apply, inter alia, in respect of a financial penalty wrongly imposed by a national authority pursuant to an act of EU law or provisions of national law adopted in order to implement such an act, to transpose it or to ensure compliance with it. Accordingly, the person concerned has the right to the repayment of such a financial penalty and to the payment of interest. That interest is, by analogy, also owed where export refunds have been paid late to a person, in breach of EU law.
Next, the Court provides clarifications regarding the circumstance which forms the basis for the right to repayment and to the payment of interest, namely the fact that the payment of a sum of money has been imposed or refused by a national authority ‘in breach of EU law’. Such a breach may thus relate, inter alia, to the situation in which a national authority has misapplied an EU act or national legislation implementing or transposing such an act when it imposed or refused that payment. Moreover, the existence of a breach of EU law may be established not only by the EU judicature but also by a national court, whether that court is called upon to draw the appropriate conclusions from a finding of illegality or invalidity previously made by the EU judicature or to find that a measure adopted by a national authority is vitiated by an incorrect implementation of EU law.
In the absence of EU legislation, it is for the national legislature to lay down the detailed rules for the payment of interest in the event of the repayment of sums of money levied or refused in breach of EU law, while complying with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. In particular, a person must also be able to claim and obtain such interest for the period from the date on which the sum of money in question was paid to the Member State concerned or should have been granted to the person on the date on which legal proceedings for the repayment or the grant of those sums of money are brought.
That being so, national legislation which provides that the payment of interest is due only if legal proceedings have been brought is not necessarily precluded. The national court must, however, verify that that condition does not have the effect of making the exercise of the rights which persons derive from EU law excessively difficult or impossible.