Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 19 February 2004 In Case C-329/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, export, export licence, interpretation of the law, quantitative restriction, sugar industry

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

(Sixth Chamber)

19 February 2004

In Case C-290/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Receveur principal des douanes de
Villepinte v Derudder & Cie SA (1)

(Free movement of goods — Release for free circulation
— Taking of a sample — Possibility of challenging the
representativeness of that sample)

In Case C-329/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen v
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (1)

(2004/C 94/04)

(Language of the case: French)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Sugar — Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 — Proof of export
— Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 — Correction of an
licence — Obvious inaccuracy — Principle of
export

proportionality)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

(2004/C 94/05)

In Case C-290/01: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Receveur
principal des douanes de Villepinte and Derudder & Cie SA;
third party: Tang Frères, on the interpretation of Article 70(1)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.
1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
mans
the Fifth
Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it
has ruled:

(Rapporteur), acting for

the President of

Council Directive 79/695/EEC of 24 July 1979 on the harmo-
nisation of procedures for the release of goods for free circula-
tion and Commission Directive 82/57/EEC of 17 December
1981 laying down certain provisions for implementing Direc-
tive 79/695, as amended by Commission Directive 83/371/EEC
of 14 July 1983, together with Council Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that
is
permissible for a customs declarant or his
representative
present when a sample was taken by the customs authorities of
imported goods and who did not at the time challenge the
representativeness of that sample to challenge its representa-
tiveness when requested by those authorities to pay additional
import duties following their analysis of that sample, provided
that the goods concerned have not been released or, if they
have been released, that they have not been altered in any way
whatsoever, which is for that declarant to prove.

it

(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-329/01: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court The Queen, on
the application of British Sugar plc, and Intervention Board for
Agricultural Produce, on the interpretation of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying
down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar produc-
tion in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14), as amended
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January
1996 (OJ 1996 L 24, p. 3), and on the interpretation and
validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16
November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the
application of the system of import and export licences and
advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products (OJ 1988 L
331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
1199/95 of 29 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 119, p. 4), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the Presi-
dent of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F.
Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
19 February 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. The proof provided for in Article 2(2)(a) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying
down detailed implementing rules
in respect of sugar
production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996, has
not been supplied in respect of a quantity of C sugar actu-
ally exported where that quantity exceeds the total quantity

C 94/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

that

stated on the export licence or where the export takes place
after the period of that licence's validity has expired. The
fact
the C sugar concerned did actually leave the
Community's customs territory is not conclusive in that
respect. The same is true where the customs authorities
have endorsed the licence extract for a quantity applied for,
but which does not reflect the manufacturer's real intentions
having regard to a customs declaration in a corrected form
corresponding to the amount actually exported.

2. On a proper construction of Article 24 of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying
down common detailed rules for the application of the
system of import and export licences and advance-fixing
amended by
agricultural products,
certificates
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/95 of 29 May 1995,
the competent authority is not permitted to carry out a
correction of the tonnage stated on the export licence or
extract
therefrom where there is no inaccuracy in the
entries made in those documents themselves.

for

as

3. Examination of Article 24 of Regulation No 3719/88, as
amended by Regulation No 1199/95, has disclosed nothing
which might affect its validity.

4. In circumstances such as those in the case in the main
proceedings neither the national court nor the competent
authorities enjoy any discretion to vary downwards the
charge to be paid pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No
2670/81, as amended by Regulation No 158/96.

5. Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81 as amended is to be
interpreted as applying to an export of C sugar effected after
the corresponding export licence has expired, if the export
was made after the expiry of
the corresponding export
licence.

(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

In Case C-344/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Commis-
sion of the European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Expenditure excluded from Community finan-
cing — Suckler cow premium — Checks carried out by
the Commission in certain Länder — Extrapolation of
findings to other Länder — Burden of proof — Duty of
cooperation in good faith)

(2004/C 94/06)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-344/01: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D.
Plessing and M. Lumma) against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr), with an address for service in
Luxembourg: APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission
Decision 2001/557/EC of 11 July 2001excluding from Com-
munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
States under the Guarantee Section of
the European Agri-
cultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2001 L
200, p. 28),
in so far as it makes financial corrections in
respect of suckler cow premiums granted in 1995 and 1996,
which correspond to the 1996 and 1997 financial years, the
Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A.
Rosas and A. La Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.
Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

11 March 2004

In Case C-396/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Identifica-
tion of waters affected by pollution and waters which
could be affected by pollution — Designation of vulner-
able zones which contribute to pollution — Establishment
of action programmes in respect of designated vulnerable
zones — Monitoring and review)

(2004/C 94/07)

(Language of the case: English)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-396/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R.B. Wainwright), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Ireland (Agent: D.J. O'Hagan), with an address
for service in Luxembourg: Application for a declaration that:
by failing, within the time-limits provided for in Council Direc-
tive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protec-
tion of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agri-
cultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1),