CELEX: C2004/094/05
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-17 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 19 February 2004 In Case C-329/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

17.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 94/3
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Sixth Chamber)
   19 February 2004
   In Case C-329/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (1)
   
   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 - Proof of export - Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 - Correction of an export licence - Obvious inaccuracy - Principle of proportionality)
   (2004/C 94/05)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-329/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court The Queen, on the application of British Sugar plc, and Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996 (OJ 1996 L 24, p. 3), and on the interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products (OJ 1988 L 331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/95 of 29 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 119, p. 4), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2004, in which it has ruled:
   
               1.
            
            
               The proof provided for in Article 2(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996, has not been supplied in respect of a quantity of C sugar actually exported where that quantity exceeds the total quantity stated on the export licence or where the export takes place after the period of that licence's validity has expired. The fact that the C sugar concerned did actually leave the Community's customs territory is not conclusive in that respect. The same is true where the customs authorities have endorsed the licence extract for a quantity applied for, but which does not reflect the manufacturer's real intentions having regard to a customs declaration in a corrected form corresponding to the amount actually exported.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               On a proper construction of Article 24 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/95 of 29 May 1995, the competent authority is not permitted to carry out a correction of the tonnage stated on the export licence or extract therefrom where there is no inaccuracy in the entries made in those documents themselves.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Examination of Article 24 of Regulation No 3719/88, as amended by Regulation No 1199/95, has disclosed nothing which might affect its validity.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings neither the national court nor the competent authorities enjoy any discretion to vary downwards the charge to be paid pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81, as amended by Regulation No 158/96.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81 as amended is to be interpreted as applying to an export of C sugar effected after the corresponding export licence has expired, if the export was made after the expiry of the corresponding export licence.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.