Case C-281/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 13 June 2007 — Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, export refund, interpretation of the law

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

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/17

Questions referred

1. Must

the

the

first

first

sentence of

subparagraph 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 (1) be applied to a claim for
recovery of an export refund wrongly granted to an exporter,
even if the latter did not commit an irregularity?

If this question is to be answered in the affirmative:

2. Must this provision be applied mutatis mutandis to a claim for
recovery of such benefits from the party to which the
exporter has assigned its claim to the export refund?

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

Action brought on 13 June 2007 — Commission v Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-286/07)

(2007/C 211/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

By making the registration of these vehicles in Luxembourg
subject to additional document checks and,
in particular, the
submission of an official excerpt from the entry on the commer-
cial register of the vehicle's seller, the defendant has effectively
made it less attractive to import vehicles which had previously
been registered in another Member State and is therefore
hindering the free movement of these goods.

This barrier to trade, prohibited by Article 28 EC,
is all the
more serious as it predominantly affects imported vehicles, with
second-hand vehicles that had previously been registered in
to the same document
Luxembourg not apparently subject
checks.

Besides, the reasons that the defendant has given for this barrier
to trade are not very convincing, particular in so far as the
defendant already has important means of control at its disposal
to ensure that the vehicles at issue have not been stolen and, in
any event,
less radical measures than an outright refusal to
register the vehicle can be envisaged if the requisite excerpt
for
from the commercial
example, suspension of the registration procedure for the time
required by the administrative authorities to run checks.

is unavailable,

such as,

register

Action brought on 14 June 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-287/07)

(2007/C 211/33)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— declare that, by requiring the submission of an excerpt from
the seller's entry on the commercial register for the purpose
of registering vehicles which have previously been registered
in another Member State, where no such excerpt is required
for vehicles which have previously been registered in
Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission criticises the conditions imposed
by the defendant for the registration of second-hand vehicles
which have previously been registered in another Member State.

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures
of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and
postal services sectors (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;