Case C-120/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Export declaration — Lack of documentary evidence — Use of other types of evidence)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agro-industry, customs formalities, export refund, interpretation of the law

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/9

Operative part of the Judgment

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.

by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of
such refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
229/96 of 7 February 1996, is to be interpreted as not precluding an
exporter from providing evidence by other means where it is unable to
provide in support of
its export declaration documentary evidence
relating to the quantities of products actually used in the manufacture
of exported goods, even in a case of force majeure. The national autho-
rities are to assess that other means of evidence, in accordance with the
detailed rules laid down in the national law, provided, however, that
those rules do not affect either the scope or effectiveness of Community
law. For that purpose, national authorities must also take into consid-
eration documents previously exchanged with the exporter when the
application is made under the simplified procedure provided for in the
third subparagraph of Article 3(2) of that regulation.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanz-
gericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Schulze GmbH
& Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(1) OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.

(Case C-120/05) (1)

(Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Export declara-
tion — Lack of documentary evidence — Use of other types of
evidence)

(2006/C 326/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Provincial de Madrid — Spain) — Elisa María Mostaza
Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL

(Case C-168/05) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Failure to raise the unfair nature of a term during arbitra-
tion proceedings — Possibility of raising that objection in the
context of an action brought against the arbitration award)

(2006/C 326/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of
the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the
refunds on certain agricultural
system of granting export
products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex
II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such
refunds (OJ 1994 L 136, p. 5) — Exporter unable to fulfil the
obligation to provide the competent authorities, in support of
its declaration, with all documents and information regarded by
those authorities as appropriate — Documents destroyed by
force majeure — Possibility of using other types of evidence.

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elisa María Mostaza Claro

Defendant: Centro Móvil Milenium SL

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed
rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on
certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de
Madrid — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of, and point
1(q) of the annex to, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p.
29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the use of
terms — Invalidity of an arbitration agreement not
unfair
pleaded by the consumer during the arbitration proceedings