Case C-279/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Vion Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, export refund, fraud against the EU, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di
appello di Firenze(Italy) lodged on 11 June 2007 — Nancy
Delay v Università degli Studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale
della previdenza sociale (INPS), Italian Republic

(Case C-276/07)

(2007/C 211/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di appello di Firenze, Sezione delle controversie del lavoro

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
GmbH & Co

Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred

1. Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of
the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation
(EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on
the protection of the European Communities' financial inter-
ests be applied even if an irregularity was committed or
ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95
entered into force?

2. Is the limitation period prescribed in that provision applic-
able in general
to administrative measures such as the
recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregulari-
ties?

Applicant: Nancy Delay

If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

Defendants: Università degli Studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale
della previdenza sociale (INPS), Italian Republic

Question referred

On a proper construction of Article 39 of the founding Treaty
and secondary acts (in particular, the interpretations given in
Cases C-212/99 and C-119/04), are the rules valid which are
applied to so-called ‘exchange assistants’, who were previously
bound by fixed-term contracts (under Law No 62/1967), and
who, when such contracts are replaced by contracts of indefinite
duration, are not guaranteed the protection of all their rights
from the date of their original recruitment, in respect not only
of salary increases but also of seniority and the payment by the
employer of social security contributions?

3. May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation
(EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State
even if such a longer period was already provided for in the
law of the Member State before the abovementioned regu-
lation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied
even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the
recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in
general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State
concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regu-
lated (‘catch-all’ provision)?

(1) OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
lodged on 13 June 2007 — Vion
nanzhof

(Germany)

Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof
lodged on 13 June 2007 — Josef
Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co v
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Germany)

(Case C-279/07)

(2007/C 211/29)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-278/07)

(2007/C 211/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vion Trading GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

C 211/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Question(s) referred

Questions referred

1. Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of
the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation
(EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the
protection
financial
interests (1) be applied even if an irregularity was committed
or ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95
entered into force?

European Communities'

the

of

2. Is

the

limitation period prescribed in that provision
applicable in general to administrative measures such as the
recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregulari-
ties?

1. Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of
the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation
(EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on
the protection of
financial
interests be applied even if an irregularity was committed or
ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95
entered into force?

the European Communities'

2. Is

the

limitation period prescribed in that provision
applicable in general to administrative measures such as the
recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregulari-
ties?

If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

3. May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation
(EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State
even if such a longer period was already provided for in the
law of the Member State before the abovementioned regu-
lation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied
even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the
recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in
general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State
concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regu-
lated (‘catch-all’ provision)?

3. May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation
(EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State
even if such a longer period was already provided for in the
law of the Member State before the abovementioned regu-
lation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied
even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the
recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in
general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State
concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regu-
lated (‘catch-all’ provision)?

(1) OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

(1) OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Ze Fu
Fleischhandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-280/07)

(2007/C 211/30)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof (Germany), lodged on 13 June 2007 — Bayerische
und Vereinsbank AG v Hauptzollamt
Hypotheken-

Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-281/07)

(2007/C 211/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH

Applicant: Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas