CELEX: C2000/122/15
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-30/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that court of 12 January 2000, in the case of William Hinton & Sons, Lda and Fazenda Pública

C 122/10                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.4.2000
The contested decision infringes Article 4 of Regulations               (c) For the purposes of applying Article 1(1)(2)(c) in conjunc-
1073/1999 and 1074/1999 inasmuch as:                                         tion with the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of
                                                                             Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979,
— it renders entirely nugatory the OLAF’s ability to conduct                 may a first act determining the amount of levies payable
     internal inquiries within the EIB and, furthermore, the                 be regarded as the end of the limitation period for
     application of Regulations 1073/1999 and 1074/1999 to                   post-clearance recovery proceedings or, on the contrary, is
     the EIB. Moreover, access by OLAF to the information held               the end of that period marked by the issue of a second act
     by the EIB must be authorised case by case by the President             revoking and replacing the first, giving a new amount for
     of the EIB who also decides the type of access to be                    the levies due?
     granted;
                                                                        (d) What meaning must be attributed to Article 254 of the
— by providing for no more than ‘assistance’ to OLAF in                      Treaty of Accession (2) where it imposes on the Portuguese
     anti-fraud efforts with regard to transactions carried out in           Republic the obligation to eliminate surplus stocks of
     relation to the EIB’s own resources it is creating a                    products and, in particular, to do so ‘at the expense of the
     distinction between the various sources of financing which              Portuguese Republic’?
     is incompatible with the protection of the ‘financial
     interests’ of the European Community;
                                                                        (e) Is the requirement imposed by the Portuguese Customs
                                                                             Authorities on holders of surplus sugar that they pay
— it does not constitute at all a sufficient measure                         the levies provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 579/86
     implementing the obligations under Article 4(6) of the                  (Article7(1)) in circumstances where the Portuguese Repub-
     abovementioned regulations.                                             lic had failed to take the measures necessary for the export
                                                                             thereof outside the Community compatible with the
                                                                             obligation laid down by Article 254 of the Treaty of
(1) Not published, communicated to the Commission by letter of
    16.11.1999.                                                              Accession, of which further details are given in the
                                                                             implementing regulations — Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 3771/85 of 20 December 1985 (3) (Article 8) and
                                                                             Commission Regulation (EEC) No 579/86 of 28 February
                                                                             1986 (4) (Articles 4 and 8)?
                                                                        (f) For the purposes of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation
                                                                             (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 June 1979, must an incorrect
                                                                             estimate of sugar requirements for public supply of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo                            Autonomous Region of Madeira, which was based on an
Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment                         import licence in which exemption from customs duties
of that court of 12 January 2000, in the case of William                     was granted in full awareness of Article 254 of the Treaty
           Hinton & Sons, Lda and Fazenda Pública                           of Accession and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3771/85,
                                                                             be regarded as a significant error?
                          (Case C-30/00)
                                                                        (g) For the purposes of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                         (2000/C 122/15)                                     No 1697/79, must the successive errors of fact and of
                                                                             law committed by the competent Customs Authority in
                                                                             determining the amount payable be regarded as significant?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Second Chamber
of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-                (h) If the previous two questions are answered in the affirm-
trative Court) of 12 January 2000, which was received at the                 ative, could the debtor reasonably detect such errors on
Court Registry on 4 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in               the part of the competent customs authorities?
the case of William Hinton & Sons, Lda and Fazenda Pública,
on the following questions:
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
(a) Should it be inferred from Article 1(2)(c) of Council                   post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which
     Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979(1) that,                   have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods
     when the legal act known as entry in the accounts has                  entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay
     been carried out, that act must necessarily precede the                such duties — OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1.
     notification regarding recovery and actual recovery?               (2) OJ 1985 L 302.
                                                                        (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3771/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                            stocks of agricultural products in Portugal (OJ 1985 L 362, p. 21).
(b) Should there be deemed to be a lack of any entry in the             (4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 579/86 of 28 February 1986
     accounts, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of               laying down detailed rules relating to stocks of products in the
     Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of                 sugar sector in Spain and Portugal on 1 March 1986 (OJ 1986
     24 July 1979, when the purpose of the first measure by                 L 57 of 1.3.1986).
     which the Customs Authority enters the amount of levies
     in accounting records or the equivalent thereof is to record
     the recovery of those levies?