CELEX: C2005/143/11
Language: en
Date: 2005-06-11 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-385/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG (Export refunds — Misdeclaration — Meaning of ‘request’ — Sanction — Requirements)

11.6.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 143/10
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (First Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-385/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG (1)
   
   (Export refunds - Misdeclaration - Meaning of ‘request’ - Sanction - Requirements)
   (2005/C 143/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-385/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 30 July 2003, received at the Court on 12 September 2003, in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, are to be interpreted as meaning that wrong information contained in a document referred to in Article 3(5) of that regulation, that is, the export declaration or another document used for export, and capable of leading to a refund in excess of the refund applicable, gives rise to the imposition of the sanction prescribed by Article 11. That rule applies even if, in connection with the application for payment referred to in Article 47 of that regulation, it is expressly stated that payment of the export refund is not sought for certain products covered by that document.
   
      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.