Case C-2/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export of cattle — Export refunds — Final administrative decision — Interpretation of a judgment of the Court — Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision — Review and withdrawal — Time-limits — Legal certainty — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC)
Date: 2008-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, appeal to an administrative authority, case-law (EU), interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February
2008 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Willy Kempter KG
v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

for

time-limits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the
Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence.

(Case C-2/06) (1)

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

(Export of cattle — Export refunds — Final administrative
decision — Interpretation of a judgment of the Court —
Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that
decision — Review and withdrawal — Time-limits — Legal
certainty — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC)

(2008/C 79/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Willy Kempter KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of Article 10 of the EC Treaty as interpreted by
the judgment of the Court in Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz
[2004] ECR I-837 — Review and amendment by an administra-
tive body of an administrative decision by it that has become
final in order to take account of the interpretation of the rele-
vant Community provision given in the meantime in a judg-
ment of the Court although the person to whom the decision
was addressed had not relied on infringement of that provision
at the time of the initial
judicial proceedings and lodged its
application for review only 19 months after that judgment was
delivered

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February
2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil
d'État (France)) — Centre d'exportation du livre français
(CELF), Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v
Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition

(Case C-199/06) (1)

(State aid — Article 88(3) EC — National courts — Recovery
of unlawfully implemented aid — Aid declared compatible
with the common market)

(2008/C 79/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Centre d'exportation du livre français (CELF), Ministre
de la Culture et de la Communication

Defendant: Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) —
Interpretation of Article 88 EC — Whether it is permissible for
a Member State not to recover unlawfully granted aid which the
European Commission, after receiving a complaint from a third
party, has declared compatible with the common market

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

1. In the context of a procedure before an administrative body for
review of an administrative decision that became final by virtue of a
judgment, delivered by a court of final instance, which, in the light
of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, was based on a
misinterpretation of Community law, Community law does not
require the claimant to have relied on Community law in the legal
action under domestic law which he brought against that decision.

2. Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an
application for review of an administrative decision that has become
final. The Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable

common market, within the meaning

1. The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as
meaning that the national court is not bound to order the recovery
of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commis-
sion has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compa-
tible with the
of
Article 87 EC. Applying Community law, the national court must
order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of
unlawfulness. Within the framework of its domestic law, it may, if
appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without
prejudice to the Member State's right to re-implement it, subse-
quently. It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation
for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.