CELEX: C1996/095/05
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-30 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 1996 in Case C-212/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): FMC plc and Others v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and goatmeat - Clawback - Method of calculation - Validity - Proof - Reimbursement of undue payments)

30 . 3 . 96         I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/3
     processing, as in force at the material time, allowed a          G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. L.
     Member State to provide that, in the case of release for         Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,
     home use in the Community ofgoods previously subject             Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     to inward processing arrangements, the agricultural levy         Registrar, has given a judgment in which it ruled that:
     payable is to bear default interest for the period between
     temporary importation and definitive importation.
                                                                      1 . Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no
                                                                            factor of such a kind as to affect the validity either of
2 . Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                              Article 4 (1 ) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     harmonization ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating                  No 1633/84 of 8 June 1984 laying down detailed rules
     to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                       for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep
     tax: uniform basis of assessment, precludes a Member                   and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2661 /80, as
     State from requiring default interest to be charged on the             amended by Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     VAT payable in the event of declaration for home use in                No 1922/92 of 13 ]uly 1992 amending Regulation
     the Community of goods which were earlier subject to                   (EEC) No 1633/84, cited above, and determining the
     inward processing arrangements for the period between                  conditions for the reimbursement of the clawback
     temporary importation and definitive importation.                      following the judgment of the Court ofJustice in Joined
                                                                            Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90, or of Article 2 of
(') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1922/92 .
                                                                      2 . The requirement of proof laid down in Article 4 (1 ) of
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1 633/84, cited above, as amended
                                                                            by Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1 922/92, cited
                                                                            above, and in Article 2 of the latter Regulation, is to be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        interpreted as meaning that traders are required to
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                   supply proof to the satisfaction of the competent United
                                                                            Kingdom authorities, in accordance with national law
                      of 8 February 1996                                    and within the period prescribed by Regulation (EEC)
in Case C-2 12/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  No 1 922/92, of the amount of the premium actually
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): FMC                    granted for products subject to clawback, provided that
pic and Others v. Intervention Board for Agricultural                       the applicable national rules do not affect the scope or
  Produce, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ( 1 )                effectiveness of Community law.
(Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and
goatmeat — Clawback — Method ofcalculation — Validity                 3 . As regards claims for repayment of clawback unduly
      — Proof — Reimbursement of undue payments)                            paid prior to 10 March 1992, paragraph 30 of the
                            ( 96/C 95/05 )                                  judgment in Lomas and Others (Joined Cases C-38/90
                                                                            and C-151 /90) is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                            traders or those entitled through them who prior to that
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            date initiated proceedings or made an equivalent
                                                                            complaint under the applicable national law may rely on
In Case C-2 12/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                the invalidity of Article 4 (1 ) and (2) of Regulation No
of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen 's                     (EEC) No 1633/84, cited above, as from the date of its
Bench Division for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  entry into force, subject to the application, within the
pending before that court between FMC pic, FMC ( Meat)                      limits set by Community law, of any national rules
Ltd, DT Duggins Ltd, Marshall ( Lamberhurst) Ltd,                           limiting the period prior to the submission of a claim in
Montelupo Ltd and North Devon Meat Ltd and                                  respect ofwhich repayment ofa sum unduly paid may be
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce , Ministry of                   obtained.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the validity and
interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation
( EEC ) No 1633/84 of 8 June 1984 laying down detailed                4 . With regard to matters not governed by Article 2 of
rules for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep                 Regulation (EEC) No 1922/92, cited above, national
and repealing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2661 /80 ( OJ No L 154 ,                courts called upon to give judgment on a claim for
1984, p. 27 ), as amended by Article 1 of Commission                        reimbursement of clawback unduly charged must apply
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1922/92 of 13 July 1992 amending                      their national law, provided the detailed rules laid down
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1633/84, cited above, and                             therein are not less favourable than those governing
determining the conditions for the reimbursement of the                     similar domestic actions and are not so framed as to
clawback following the judgment of the Court of Justice in                  render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the
Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90 ( OJ No L 195 , 1992 ,                   exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal
p. 10 ), the validity and interpretation of Article 2 of                    system .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1922/92, cited above, and the
interpretation of paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Court           f 1 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
of Justice in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 Lomas and
Others ( 1992 ) ECR 1-1781 , the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,