Ministero delle Finanze v Eribrand SpA.
Date: 2003-06-19
40.  According to Article 47(2) of that regulation, the exporter has, except in cases of   force majeure  , a period of 12 months following the date on which the export declaration was accepted to submit to the competent national authorities the application for refund and all the other documents necessary for the payment thereof.  Such a time-limit takes account of the interest of the Member States' authorities in closing export refund files within a reasonable time, in particular where advances on the amount of refunds have been paid in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation No 3665/87 (see, to that effect, in respect of the equivalent provisions in 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 agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317, p. 1), which applied before the entry into force of Regulation No 3665/87, Case C-155/89   Philipp Brothers   [1990] ECR I-3265, paragraph 39).
41.  However, the Community legislation also takes into consideration the fact that exporters may encounter difficulties in obtaining the customs documents from the authorities of the non-member country of importation, upon whom they have no means of exerting pressure (Philipp Brothers  , cited above, paragraph 27).
42.  In that context, Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87 enables the competent national authorities to grant the exporters concerned extensions of time, on condition that they have acted with diligence in obtaining and forwarding the required documentation within the time-limit of 12 months fixed by paragraph 2 of that article.  As the Court held in paragraph 148 of the judgment in   Germany   v   Commission  , cited above, the purpose of that rule is to ensure that exporters who, despite having made every effort required of them, have been prevented, as a result of circumstances beyond their control, from producing the requisite documents within the 12-month period, are not automatically deprived of the refunds provided for under the Community rules.
45.  With regard to the question whether the said Article 48(2)(a) of Regulation No 3665/87 nevertheless precludes the grant of extensions of time which could exceed a total period of 18 months from the date of acceptance of the export declaration, it is necessary to point out that the wording of that provision contains no restriction on the length of the extensions of time which may be granted by virtue of Article 47(4) of that regulation.  On the contrary, it is clear from the express reference to the time-limits set by Article 47(2), (4) and (5) that, if an extension of time has been granted to the exporter, in accordance with the said paragraph 4, the exporter has a further period of six months following the expiry of that time-limit to complete his file and thus obtain the payment of 85% of the refund which would have been due to be paid if all the requirements had been satisfied.
49.  Consequently, the first three questions must be answered to the effect that Regulation No 3665/87 does not fix any limit to the length of the extensions of time which may be granted to exporters by virtue of Article 47(4) of that regulation.  It is for the competent national authorities to fix the length of those periods in relation to the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account, in particular, the diligence shown by the exporter seeking an extension of time, the nature of the objective difficulties confronting him and the period of time reasonably necessary to overcome those difficulties.
The fourth and fifth questions referred
61.  It is appropriate, secondly, to point out that the principle of effective judicial protection, which is a general principle of Community law (see, among others, Case 222/84   Johnston   [1986] ECR 1651, paragraph 18;   Heylens and Others  , cited above, paragraph 14; and Case C-226/99   Siples   [2001] ECR I-277, paragraph 17), requires that exporters have a legal remedy against decisions taken by competent national authorities under Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87.  It is for the Member States to ensure effective judicial scrutiny of the observance of the applicable provisions of Community law (Johnston  , cited above, paragraph 19).
62.  According to the Court's settled case-law, in the absence of provisions of Community law, such judicial scrutiny is subject to the rules of national law, providing the limits imposed by Community law are complied with, in so far as the detailed rules laid down must not render it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to implement the Community rules (principle of effectiveness) and that the national legislation must be applied in a manner which is not discriminatory as compared to procedures for deciding national disputes of the same type (principle of equivalence) (see, in particular, Joined Cases 205/82 to 215/82   Deutsche Milchkontor and Others   [1983] ECR 2633, paragraph 19; Case C-298/96   Oelmühle and Schmidt Söhne   [1998] ECR I-4767, paragraph 24; and Case C-255/00   Grundig Italiana   [2002] ECR I-8003, paragraph 33).