CELEX: C2005/205/06
Language: en
Date: 2005-08-20 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-542/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Milupa GmbH & Co. KG (Agriculture — Export refunds — Agricultural products which are processed and incorporated into goods not covered by Annex II of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Annex I EC) — Inaccurate declaration — Sanction)

20.8.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 205/3
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-542/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Milupa GmbH & Co. KG (1)
   
   (Agriculture - Export refunds - Agricultural products which are processed and incorporated into goods not covered by Annex II of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Annex I EC) - Inaccurate declaration - Sanction)
   (2005/C 205/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-542/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 18 November 2003, received at the Court on 23 December 2003, in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Milupa GmbH & Co. KG — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it ruled:
   The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1), the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) and Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 229/96 of 7 February 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning that where an exporter has declared in a request for an export refund that, in the production of the goods in issue, a product was used which, by virtue of Article 1(2) of that regulation, is assimilated to the skimmed milk powder described in Annex A (PG 2), whereas in fact another product was used which, by virtue of the same provision, is also assimilated to the same skimmed milk powder, he is entitled to the grant of an export refund, corrected if appropriate in accordance with Article 11 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.
   
      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.