CELEX: C2001/150/01
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 in Case C-110/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Export refunds — Goods immediately re-imported into the Community — Abuse of rights)

19.5.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Commission Regulation
                                                                             (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying down common
                                                                             detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on
                      of 14 December 2000                                    agricultural products, in the version resulting from Commission
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 568/85 of 4 March 1985, must be interpreted
                                                                             as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to
in Case C-110/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                         payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Emsland-Stärke GmbH v                             respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)                                purchaser established in a non-member country, is, immediately after
                                                                             its release for home use in that non-member country, transported
                                                                             back to the Community under the external Community transit
(Agriculture — Export refunds — Goods immediately re-                        procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import
      imported into the Community — Abuse of rights)                         duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that
                                                                             operation constitutes an abuse on the part of that Community
                                                                             exporter.
                          (2001/C 150/01)
                                                                             A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part
                   (Language of the case: German)                            of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result
                                                                             of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the
                                                                             conditions for obtaining it. Evidence of this must be placed before the
                                                                             national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter
                   in the European Court Reports)                            and the importer of the goods into the non-member country.
In Case C-110/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof                  The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the
(Federal Finance Court) Germany, for a preliminary ruling in                 product was sold by the purchaser established in the non-member
the proceedings pending before that court between Emsland-                   country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country
Stärke GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — on the                          with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts
interpretation of Articles 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Commission              which can be taken into account by the national court when
Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying                       ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to
down common detailed rules for the application of the system                 repay refunds are fulfilled.
of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317
p. 1), in the version resulting from Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 568/85 of 4 March 1985 (OJ 1985 L 65, p. 5) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris                        (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in
which it has ruled: