Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 24 June 2004 in Case C-278/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufungssenat I der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich): Herbert Handlbauer GmbH (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Beef and veal — Export refunds — Repayment of amounts wrongly paid — Proceedings relating to irregularities — Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Direct effect — Limitation period — Interruption of the limitation)
Date: 2004-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs inspection, export refund, financial interests of members, interpretation of the law

C 201/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.8.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

24 June 2004

(First Chamber)

of 24 June 2004

in Case C-278/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Berufungssenat I der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandes-
für Oberösterreich): Herbert Handlbauer
direktion

GmbH (1)

in Case C-350/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Beef
and veal — Export refunds — Repayment of amounts
wrongly paid — Proceedings relating to irregularities —
Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Direct
effect — Limitation period — Interruption of the limitation)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Proces-
sing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
electronic communications sector — Articles 6 and 9 of
Directive 97/66/EC — Requirement for specific statement of
grounds of complaint in the reasoned opinion)

(2004/C 201/06)

(Language of the case: German)

(2004/C 201/07)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-278/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Berufungssenat I der Region Linz bei der Finanzlan-
desdirektion für Oberösterreich (Austria)
for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court by Herbert
Handlbauer GmbH — on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial
interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N.
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica
Colneric,
Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,
the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it has ruled:

for

1. Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95
of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Commu-
interests is directly applicable in the Member
nities financial
States,
including in the field of export refunds on agricultural
products, in the absence of sectoral Community rules providing for
a shorter limitation period which may not be less than three years
or of national rules providing for a longer limitation period.

2. The

third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No
2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that notification of a
customs inspection made to the undertaking involved does not
constitute an act relating to investigation or legal proceedings
which interrupts the limitation period of four years under Article
3(1) of the said regulation unless the transactions to which the
suspicion of the existence of irregularities are sufficiently precisely
defined by the act.

(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.

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

In Case C-350/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Shotter and W. Wils) v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agent: S. Terstal ) — application for a declaration that, by
failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to transpose into national law Articles 6
and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing
of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecom-
munications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1) or, at least, by not
the
communicating those provisions
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty — the Court (First Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von
Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges;
J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June
2004, in which it:

to the Commission,

1. Declares that, by incompletely transposing Article 6 of Directive
97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15
December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and
the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, in that,
first, Article 11(5)(1) of the Wet houdende regels inzake de tele-
communicatie (Telecommunicatiewet) refers to a general adminis-
trative measure which was not communicated to the Commission
of the European Communities and in that, second, the imple-
menting provisions mentioned in Article 11(5)(3) of the Telecom-
municatiewet were not communicated to the Commission, and by
incompletely transposing Article 9 of that directive, the Kingdom
of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;