Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2004 in Case C-446/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Gouralnik & Partner GmbH (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Inaccurate declaration — Consequential effects on the validity of the declaration)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, customs formalities, customs inspection, export refund, interpretation of the law

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/27

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

3665/87 as regards the recovery of amounts unduly paid and
sanctions, is applicable in such circumstances.

(Third Chamber)

of 30 April 2004

(1) OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.

in Case C-446/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v
Gouralnik & Partner GmbH (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture —
Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds —
Inaccurate declaration — Consequential
effects on the
validity of the declaration)

(2004/C 118/47)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-446/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Haupt-
zollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Gouralnik & Partner GmbH – on
the interpretation of the legislation applicable to export refunds
– the Court of Justice (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N.
Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2004, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

1. For refunds requested before 1 April 1995, Article 78(3) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 3(5)(a) of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of
the system of export refunds on agricultural products, must be
interpreted as meaning that an entitlement to an export refund
exists at least at the rate of refund applicable to the product actu-
ally exported where it
is established during a control by the
customs authorities that the declared and exported consignment
did not consist entirely of the declared product but contained a
proportion of another product to which a lower rate of refund
applied and the customs authorities adjusted the declaration in
accordance with Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(First Chamber)

of 22 March 2004

in Case C-455/02 P: Sgaravatti Mediterranea Srl v Commis-
sion of the European Communities (1)

(Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of
non bis in idem — EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assis-
tance — Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly
unfounded)

(2004/C 118/48)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-455/02 P: Sgaravatti Mediterranea Srl, established in
Capoterra (Italy), (Lawyers: M. Merola and P. Ferrari), appeal
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2002, in
Case T-199/99 Sgaravatti Mediterranea v Commission [2002]
ECR II-3731, seeking annulment of that judgment, the other
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities
(Agents: C. Cattabriga, L. Visaggio and M.
Moretto) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr,
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro,
K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 22
March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

2. For the purposes of the decision,

it is not material whether the
goods which were the subject of the incorrect customs declaration
are goods similar to those which were in fact declared.

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The applicant shall pay the costs.

3. For refunds requested after 1 April 1995, Article 11 of Regu-
lation No 3665/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 amending Regulation No

(1) OJ C 44 of 22. 2. 2003