Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 2007-06-28
29. Regulation No 3665/87, one of whose objectives is to combat irregularities and fraud detected in the area of export refunds, contains substantive and procedural rules concerning the obtaining of export refunds (see Case C‑210/00 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister  [2002] ECR I‑6453, paragraph 60, and Case C‑385/03 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister  [2005] ECR I‑2997, paragraph 26).
40. However, the requirement of the proper functioning of the Community system of refunds cannot allow Member States to obstruct the aims pursued by Regulation No 3665/87 or breach the principles of Community law, in particular the principle of proportionality.
41. While in the case of direct export, in the absence of Community legislation on the point, the detailed procedural rules intended to safeguard the rights which individuals derive from Community law fall within the internal legal order of the Member States by virtue of the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States, they must, however, not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) or render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑430/03 and C‑431/93 Van Schijndel and Van Veen  [1995] ECR I‑4705, paragraph 17, and Case C‑53/04 Marrosu and Sardino  [2006] ECR I‑7213, paragraph 52).
44. By providing for a certain flexibility in the procedural rules applicable to the production of the proof that the exporter must provide in order to be paid the refund, Regulation No 3665/87 takes into consideration the fact that exporters are liable to encounter difficulties in obtaining customs documents from the competent authorities, on whom they have no means of exerting pressure (see, to that effect, Case C‑467/01 Eribrand  [2003] ECR I‑6471, paragraph 41), and the fact that the loss of the documents required by that regulation for obtaining a refund is sometimes attributable to those authorities.
46. It is also apparent from the scheme and spirit of Regulation No 3665/87, in particular the provisions of Article 47, that the regulation aims not automatically to deprive a diligent exporter of the refunds provided for by the Community legislation where, despite having made every effort required of him, the exporter is unable to produce the documents required for the export refund to be paid, because those documents have been lost as a result of circumstances beyond his control (see, by analogy, with reference to Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87, Case C‑54/95 Germany  v Commission  [1999] ECR I‑35, paragraph 148).
48. Those means of proof, which may, in the same way as provided for in Article 47(3) of Regulation No 3665/87, include both the transport document and the import document of a non-member country relied on by Bonn Fleisch in the main proceedings, must nevertheless be just as satisfactory for the purpose of the verification in accordance with the detailed rules laid down by national law, provided that those rules respect the scope and effectiveness of Community law (see, to that effect, with reference to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (OJ 1994 L 136, p. 5), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 229/96 of 7 February 1996 (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 24), Case C‑120/95 Heinrich Schulze  [2006] ECR I‑10717, paragraph 26).