CELEX: C1996/016/19
Language: en
Date: 1996-01-20 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret, by a decision of that court of 22 November 1995 in the case of Landbrugsministeriet, EC Direktoratet v. Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco Holding A/S and SMC of 31 December 1989 (Case C-366/95)

20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hojesteret, by a           Question 2
decision of that court of 22 November 1995 in the case of
Landbrugsministeriet, EC Direktoratet v. Steff-Houlberg              Do the Community law principles that follow from the
Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco Holding A/S and SMC of                case-law of the Court of Justice concerning reimbursement
                      31 December 1989                               of unduly-paid aid, according to which the interests of the
                                                                     Community are to be fully taken into account, preclude an
                        ( Case C-366/95                              exporter undertaking being considered to be in good faith,
                           96/C 16/ 19 )                             and thus not under an obligation to reimburse an amount of
                                                                     aid, if it is taken into consideration that the exporter
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               undertakings did not reserve the right by agreement with the
European Communities by a decision of the Hosteret                   producer to carry out their own checks at the place of
( Supreme Court, Denmark ) of 22 November 1995 , which               manufacture in order to ensure that the products were
was received at the Court Registry on 28 November 1995 ,             manufactured in accordance with the declaration that the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landbrugsministeriet,        exporter would sign, when account is taken of the fact
EC-Direktoratet (Ministry of Agriculture's EC Department)            that:
v. Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco                     — the producer had export approval from the authority
Holding A/S and SMC of 31 December 1989 on the                            that made the payments,
following questions:
                                                                     — the exporter undertakings were trading undertakings
Question 1                                                                and the goods did not pass through them,
A. Do the Community law principles which result from the             — the exporter undertakings knew that the monitoring
     case-law of the Court of Justice concerning demands for              authority exercised day-to-day supervision at the place
                                                                          of manufacture, and
     reimbursement of sums unduly paid as aid, according to
     which the interests of the Community should be fully            — the price of finished products of equivalent type and
     taken into account, preclude national law from taking                description was the same from producers in Denmark
     into consideration, as criteria for excluding demands                and those abroad ?
     for reimbursement of unduly-paid aid:
                                                                     Question 3
     — the good faith of the aid recipients and thus the
          protection of legitimate expectations,                     May a third party, including an aid recipient, rely on
                                                                     possible negligence displayed by the monitoring authority
     — the fact that 5 to 10 years have elapsed since the            with the result that demands for reimbursement of refunds
          payment of the amounts of aid, and hence that it           already paid would be excluded on the basis of an overall
          would be particularly onerous for the aid recipients       assessment of the case ?
          to have to reimburse the aid now,
     — the reason for the undue payment of the aid being an
          exceptional circumstance in the form of serious            Appeal brought on 28 November 1995 by the Commission
          fraud and punishable offences on the part of a third       of the European Communities against the judgment
          party, and                                                 delivered on 28 September 1995 by the Fourth Chamber
                                                                     ( extended composition ) of the Court of First Instance of the
     — the fact that — as the exporter undertakings were             European Communities in Case T-95/94 between the
          aware — the monitoring authority exercised                 Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de
          day-to-day supervision at the place of manufacture,        fonds et valeurs ( Sytraval) and the Commission of
          without discovering/affecting the fraud,                   the European Communities, supported by thé French
                                                                                               Republic
     — the fact that, over the whole period in which
          payments were made, the authority making the                                     Case C-367/95 P)
          payment was aware that the value of the monitoring                                  96/C 16/20 )
          system depended on the accuracy of the information
          supplied by the undertaking being monitored, but           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
          despite that fact omitted to ask to see recipes or the      1 995 by the Fourth Chamber (extended composition ) of the
          producer's accounts relating to the purchase of raw        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
          materials,                                                 Case T-95/94 between the Chambre syndicale nationale des
                                                                     entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
     where the underlying principle is that the same criteria        the Commission of the European Communities, supported
     apply in connection with demands for reimbursement              by the French Republic, was brought before the Court of
     of purely national amounts of aid ?                             Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 B.  Would the answer be the same if account were taken in           represented by Jean-Louis Dewost, Director-General of its
     national law of the fact that there were no other               Legal Service, and Jean-Paul Kepenne and Michel Nolin, of
     circumstances which should have given the exporter               its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
     undertakings grounds for doubting that the product               service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos GômeZ'de la
     qualified for refunds ?                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.