Case C-1/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — System of export refunds on agricultural products — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Furnishing of proof of export of the products — Production of equivalent proof — Article 47(3) — Recognition by the authorities of their own motion as equivalent proof of documents not accompanied by an express reasoned request for them to be regarded as equivalent — Not applicable to direct export — National procedural rules — Obligations of the competent national authorities)
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, agricultural product, customs document, export refund, interpretation of the law

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/9

Parties to the main proceedings

Party in the main proceedings

Applicants: Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou &
Parokhis Ipiresion Mikhanografisis, Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas

Giovanni Dell'Orto

Defendant: Epitropi Kefalaiagoras (Capital Market Commission)

Re:

joined party: Saipem SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias —
Interpretation of Article 21 of Directive 2001/34/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on
the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and
those
on
securities
on
(OJ 2001 L 184, p. 1) — Publication of
listing particulars
containing inaccurate and misleading information liable to
deceive investors

information

published

be

to

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 of Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to offi-
cial stock exchange listing and on information to be published on
those securities is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude
a national legislature from laying down, for cases where the informa-
tion recorded in listing particulars published with a view to admitting
securities to official stock exchange listing proves to be inaccurate or
misleading, administrative penalties
imposable not only upon the
persons expressly mentioned in those particulars as responsible but also
upon the issuer of
indiscriminately, upon the
members of the issuer's board of directors, regardless of whether the
board members have been identified as responsible in the listing parti-
culars.

the securities and,

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Milano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giovanni
Dell'Orto

(Case C-467/05) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Frame-
work Decision 2001/220/JHA — Directive 2004/80/EC —
Concept of ‘victim’ in criminal proceedings — Legal person —
seized in the
criminal
Return of property
proceedings)

course

of

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Milano —
Interpretation of Articles 2 and 9 of Council Framework Deci-
sion of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings and Article 17 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of
29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims
(OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Definition of victim including ‘any
other persons affected by crime’ — Right to compensation of
such persons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on
the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as
meaning that, in criminal proceedings and, in particular, in enforce-
ment proceedings following a judgment which resulted in a final crimi-
nal conviction, such as those in the main action, the concept of ‘victim’
for the purposes of the Framework Decision does not include legal
persons who have suffered harm directly caused by acts or omissions
that are in violation of the criminal law of a Member State.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg, Germany) — Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import
GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-1/06) (1)

(Agriculture — System of export refunds on agricultural
products — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Furnishing of
proof of export of the products — Production of equivalent
proof — Article 47(3) — Recognition by the authorities of
their own motion as equivalent proof of documents not accom-
panied by an express reasoned request for them to be regarded
as equivalent — Not applicable to direct export — National
procedural rules — Obligations of the competent national
authorities)

(2007/C 199/14)

Language of the case: Italian

(2007/C 199/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

C 199/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common
detailed rules for
the system of export
refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as
amended — Recognition by an authority, of its own motion, of
supporting documents not accompanied by an express reasoned
request for recognition of equivalence as constituting equivalent
proof

the application of

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the appli-
cation of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2955/94 of 5 December
1994, does not apply to the direct export of products.

Where, however, as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the
exporter, the national export document proving that the products in
question have left the customs territory of the Community cannot be
produced, the national authorities competent for export refunds must,
in accordance with the objectives of Regulation No 3665/87, as
amended by Regulation No 2955/94, take into account of their own
motion equivalent means of proof and implied requests for documents
to be treated as equivalent. Those means of proof must nevertheless be
just as satisfactory for the purpose of the verification in accordance
with the detailed rules laid down by national law, provided that those
rules respect the scope and effectiveness of Community law.

Where the passing of the deadline for furnishing equivalent means of
proof is attributable to the competent national authorities, they cannot
rely on the 12-month period laid down by Article 47(2) of Regulation
No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, as against a
diligent exporter.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 June 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Köln, Germany) — Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszen-
tralamt für Steuern

(Case C-73/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(3) and (4) — Refund of
VAT — Eighth VAT Directive — Refund of VAT to taxable
persons not established inside the country — Articles 3(b)
and 9, second paragraph — Annex B — Certificate of status
as a taxable person — Legal scope — Thirteenth VAT Direc-
tive — Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in
Community territory — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘business’)

(2007/C 199/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln, Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln —
Interpretation of Art.3(b) of and Annex B to the Eighth Council
Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisa-
tion of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979
L 331, p. 11) and of Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Council
Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisa-
tion of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326,
p. 40) — Refund of VAT to a taxable person established in the
territory of another Member State which is a subsidiary of a
company established in a non-member State — Meaning of ‘his
business’ and ‘a fixed establishment from which business trans-
actions are effected’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(b) and the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Eighth
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-
over taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to
taxable persons not established in the territory of the country must
be interpreted as meaning that the certificate in accordance with the