CELEX: 62010CN0202
Language: en
Date: 2010-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-202/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Vion Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

31.7.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 209/12
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Vion Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-202/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/19
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Vion Trading GmbH
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the application by analogy of the limitation rule in Paragraph 195 BGB, in the version in force until the end of 2001, to claims for the repayment of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is the application of the 30-year limitation period in Paragraph 195 BGB in relation to the recovery of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of proportionality?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, is the application of a longer national limitation period within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, (1) which is determined on the basis of an emergency judicial power in particular cases, by way of judicial development of the law, compatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.