Société d'exportation de produits agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 2005-05-26
22. On that point the Court has held, in relation to Commission Regulation No 1041/67/EEC of 21 December 1967 on detailed rules for the application of export refunds on products subject to a single price system (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 323), that the requirement of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ constitutes a general, objective condition for the grant of a refund, whatever the requirements as to category and quality laid down by the regulations fixing the amounts of refund for each product. A product which could not be marketed within the Community under normal conditions and under the description given in the claim for the grant of a refund would not meet these requ irements as to quality (see Case 12/73 Muras  [1973] ECR 963, point 12).
23. That interpretation is adopted in the ninth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 3665/87, which states that  products are required to be of a quality such that they can be marketed on normal terms (see Case C-235/97 France  v Commission  [1998] ECR I‑7555, paragraph 77).
24. Furthermore, the Court has held that whilst, in the absence of a Community rule providing a definition of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’, it is for the Member States to adopt relevant provisions that are more precise, such national provisions may not conflict with the general scheme of the applicable Community rules which require a quality such as to permit marketing on normal terms (see, in particular, Cases C-371/92 Ellinika Dimitriaka  [1994] ECR I‑2391, point 23, and France  v Commission , cited above, points 76 and 77).
26. The fact that the marketability of the product ‘in normal conditions’ is an inherent aspect of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ is however clearly apparent from the rules relating to export refunds for agricultural products inasmuch as, from Regulation No 1041/67 onwards, all the relevant regulations have adopted the concept of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ as well as the criterion of the product’s marketability ‘on normal terms’ and subsequently ‘in normal conditions’ as requirements for a product’s eligibility for an export refund.
27. As far as Regulation No 800/1999 is concerned, it must be pointed out that the first and second subparagraphs of Article 21(1) provide that no refund is to be granted on products which are not of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ on the date on which the export declaration is accepted, and that products are to be deemed to meet that requirement ‘if they can be marketed on the Community’s territory in normal conditions’. It must be noted that, by using the terms mentioned above, that provision, which came into force after the events in issue in the main proceedings, has not therefore amended but, on the contrary, has confirmed the existing legal position.
29. It is appropriate in that regard to cite Directive 64/433, which provides in Article 6(1)(e) that the Member States are to ensure that meat from  animals having undergone special emergency slaughtering may only be authorised for human consumption on the local market and only if various additional conditions have been fulfilled.
30. Meat such as that in issue in the main proceedings, the production, treatment and distribution of which is significantly restricted, even if it fulfils the hygiene criteria and is the object of a commercial transaction cannot be regarded as being ‘marketable in normal conditions’.
31. Furthermore, it would seem inconsistent in any event to support the exportation of those products to non-member countries when, within the Community, they can only be marketed locally.