Case C-143/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — A.O.B. Reuter & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Article 11 — System of export refunds on agricultural products — Condition for the grant of the refund — Refund paid to the exporter after submission of documents forged by its contracting partner — Goods not exported — Conditions for the application of sanctions)
Date: 2008-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, customs formalities, export (EU), export refund, fraud, interpretation of the law

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/9

20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Likelihood of
confusion between the two marks — Moderate degree of simi-
larity between the marks — Little similarity between the goods
— Distinctive character of the earlier mark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.O.B.Reuter & Co.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of

the
European Communities of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04
Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO);

the Court of First

Instance of

2. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office
(Trade Marks and

for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) (OHIM) of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4);

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain to pay the
costs of the appeal;

4. Orders Ferrero Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs in relation
to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the
intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

5. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs in relation to
the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the
intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

6. Orders Cornu SA Fontain to bear its own costs and to pay the
costs incurred by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH and the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) in relation to its intervention.

Re:

the application of

Reference for a Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common
the system of export
detailed rules for
refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of
2 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57), and of Article 51 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the
system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999
L 102, p. 11) — Refund paid to an exporter after submission of
documents forged by a third party — Conditions governing the
application of penalties

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) 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 2945/94 of 2 December
1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the sanction for which it
provides is applicable against an exporter who has requested an export
refund on goods, where those goods, as a result of fraudulent conduct
on the part of the exporter's contracting partner, were not exported.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 April
Judgment of
2008 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — A.O.B. Reuter &
Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

for

(Case C-143/07) (1)

(Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Article 11
— System of export refunds on agricultural products —
Condition for the grant of the refund — Refund paid to the
exporter after
forged by its
submission of documents
contracting partner — Goods not exported — Conditions for
the application of sanctions)

(2008/C 142/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-286/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28
EC — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously regis-
tered in other Member States — Requirement of an excerpt
from the commercial register or a comparable document
proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer
— Exemption from the requirement to submit invoices or
other documents showing transfer of ownership by previous
owner(s))

(2008/C 142/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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