EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Südzucker AG (C-608/10), WEGO Landwirtschaftliche Schlachtstellen GmbH (C-10/11), Fleischkontor Moksel GmbH (C-23/11) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Joined Cases C-608/10, C-10/11 and C-23/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Export refunds - Incorrect indication of the exporter in the export declaration - National legislation making entitlement to an export refund subject to the entry of the applicant as the exporter in the export declaration - Correction of the export declaration after the goods have been released)

2012/C 287/10

Language of the cases: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Südzucker AG (C-608/10), WEGO Landwirtschaftliche Schlachtstellen GmbH (C-10/11), Fleischkontor Moksel GmbH (C-23/11)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 5(7) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) and of Article 78(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Incorrect indication of the exporter in the export declaration — National rules making the right to an export refund subject to the entry of the applicant as exporter in the export declaration

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 5(7) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 90/2001 of 17 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, the holder of an export licence is entitled to an export refund only if he is registered as exporter in box 2 of the export declaration lodged with the competent customs office.

2. Article 78(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as allowing a post-clearance revision of the export declaration for the purpose of refunds, in order to change the name of the exporter featuring in the box provided for that purpose, and as meaning that the customs authorities are required: — firstly, to examine whether a revision of that declaration must be considered to be possible in that, in particular, the objectives of the European Union legislation as regards export refunds have not been threatened and the goods in question have in fact been exported, this being a matter for the applicant to establish, as well as; — secondly, where relevant, to take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, taking account of the new information available to them.

3. Article 5(7) of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 90/2001, and the customs legislation of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as Case C-608/10, in which the holder of an export licence is not registered as the exporter in box 2 of the export declaration, the customs authorities cannot grant that holder the export refund without prior correction of the export declaration.

4. In a case such as those in Cases C-10/11 and C-23/11, the customs legislation of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the customs office responsible for paying the export refund is bound by a post-clearance revision, by the customs office of export, of the reference in box 2 of the export declaration, or, as the case may be, of the T5 control copy, if the amending decision fulfils all the formal and substantive conditions of a ‘decision’ provided for both by Article 4(5) of Regulation No 2913/92 and by the relevant provisions of the national law concerned. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the disputes in the main proceedings.

5. Article 5(7) of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 90/2001, and the customs legislation of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the customs office responsible for paying the export refund is not entitled, in a case such as Case C-23/11, and if it is not bound under national law by the revision made by the customs office of export, to take at face value the reference in box 2 of the export declaration and to refuse an application for an export refund on the ground that the party making that application is not the exporter of the goods covered by that application. By contrast, if the competent customs office grants the application for amendment and validly rectifies the exporter’s name, the customs office responsible for paying the export refund is bound by that decision.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.