Joined Cases C-415/20, C-419/20 and C-427/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbH (C-415/20), F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH (C-419/20), Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-415/20 and C-419/20), Hauptzollamt Kiel (C-427/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law — Anti-dumping duties, import duties, export refunds and financial penalties — Concept of ‘breach of EU law’ — Misinterpretation or misapplication of EU law — Finding of a breach of EU law by a Court of the European Union or by a national court — Right to the payment of interest — Period covered by that payment of interest)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, anti-dumping duty, customs union, export refund, fine, import levy, infringement of EU law, interest








C_2022237EN.01000801.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/8






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbH (C-415/20), F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH (C-419/20), Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-415/20 and C-419/20), Hauptzollamt Kiel (C-427/20)
(Joined Cases C-415/20, C-419/20 and C-427/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Rights to the repayment or to the payment of sums of money levied or refused by a Member State in breach of EU law - Anti-dumping duties, import duties, export refunds and financial penalties - Concept of ‘breach of EU law’ - Misinterpretation or misapplication of EU law - Finding of a breach of EU law by a Court of the European Union or by a national court - Right to the payment of interest - Period covered by that payment of interest)
(2022/C 237/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Gräfendorfer Geflügel- und Tiefkühlfeinkost Produktions GmbH (C-415/20), F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG vertr. d. d. Komplementärin Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH (C-419/20), Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-415/20 and C-419/20), Hauptzollamt Kiel (C-427/20)

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of EU law relating to the rights of persons to obtain the repayment of sums of money the payment of which has been imposed on them by a Member State in breach of EU law and the payment of interest on those sums of money must be interpreted:






—


first, as meaning that they apply where the sums of money in question correspond, on the one hand, to export refunds which were granted late to a person, after having been refused in breach of EU law, and, on the other hand, to a financial penalty which was imposed on that person as a result of that breach;










—


second, as meaning that they apply where it follows from a decision of the Court or a decision of a national court that the payment of export refunds, a financial penalty, anti-dumping duties or import duties has, as the case may be, been refused or imposed by a national authority on the basis either of an incorrect interpretation of EU law or of an incorrect application of that law, and










—


third, as precluding national legislation which provides that, where the payment of export refunds, a financial penalty, anti-dumping duties or import duties has, as the case may be, been refused or imposed in breach of EU law, the payment of interest may be made only in respect of the period from the date on which the legal proceedings seeking the payment or repayment of the sum of money in question were brought to the date of the decision given by the court having jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the earlier period. On the other hand, those principles do not, in themselves, preclude such legislation from providing that that payment is to be due only if such proceedings have been brought, provided that this does not have the effect of making the exercise of the rights which persons derive from EU law excessively difficult.






(1)  OJ C 432, 7.12.2020.

OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.