CELEX: 62014CA0059
Language: en
Date: 2015-10-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-59/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) — Recovery of an export refund — Limitation period — Date from which time runs (dies a quo) — Act or omission by the economic operator — Occurrence of the prejudice — Continuous infringement — Single infringement)

30.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 398/3
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-59/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) - Recovery of an export refund - Limitation period - Date from which time runs (dies a quo) - Act or omission by the economic operator - Occurrence of the prejudice - Continuous infringement - Single infringement))
   (2015/C 398/03)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where the infringement of a provision of EU law was discovered only after the occurrence of the prejudice, the limitation period begins to run from the time when both the economic operator’s act or omission that infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the European Union or budgets managed by it have occurred.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a prejudice occurs as soon as the decision made to grant the export refund to the exporter concerned has been made.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.