(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Export refunds – Regulations (EEC) Nos 804/68, 1706/89 and 3445/89 – Cheeses intended for processing in a third country)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 24 November 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Export refunds – Products conferring entitlement thereto – Cheese intended by its nature for processing in a third country – Included – Condition – Classification under one of the agricultural product nomenclature codes

(Commission Regulations No 1706/89, Annex, and No 3445/89, Annex)

Cheese exported in 1990 which, by its nature, is intended for processing in a third country may be covered by an export refund under Article 17(1) of Regulation No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Regulation No 3904/87, provided that it is classified, taking account of its type and composition, under one of the product codes in the annex to Regulation No 1706/89 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, as defined by the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds annexed to Regulation No 3445/89 establishing the full version, applicable from 1 January 1990, of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.

(see para. 33, operative part)

24 November 2005 (*)

(Export refunds – Regulations (EEC) Nos 804/68, 1706/89 and 3445/89 – Cheeses intended for processing in a third country)

In Case C-136/04,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 3 February 2004, received at the Court on 15 March 2004, in the proceedings

Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro,

Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 28 September 2005,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH, by U. Schrömbges and O. Wenzlaff, Rechtsanwälte,

–the Commission of the European Communities, by G. Braun, acting as Agent,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Commission Regulations (EEC) No 1706/89 of 15 June 1989 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products (OJ 1989 L 166, p. 36) and (EEC) No 3445/89 of 15 November 1989 establishing the full version, applicable from 1 January 1990, of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ 1989 L 336, p. 1).

That request was made in the course of proceedings between Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH (‘Milch-Kontor’) and the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Hamburg-Jonas Principal Customs Office, ‘the Hauptzollamt’) concerning entitlement to the grant of an export refund in respect of cheese intended for processing.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]’

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

31It is for the national court in the main proceedings to carry out such an assessment.

32As regards the ninth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1706/89, it is sufficient to recall that the preamble to a Community act has no binding legal force and cannot be relied on either as a ground for derogating from the actual provisions of the act in question or for interpreting those provisions in a manner clearly contrary to their wording (Case C-162/97 <i>Nilsson and Others</i> [1998] ECR I-7477, paragraph 54, and Case C-308/97 <i>Manfredi</i> [1998] ECR I-7685, paragraph 30).

33In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred must therefore be that cheese exported in 1990 which, by its nature, is intended for processing in a third country may be covered by an export refund under Article 17(1) of Regulation No 804/68 provided that it is classified, taking account of its type and composition, under one of the product codes in the annex to Regulation No 1706/89, as defined by the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds annexed to Regulation No 3445/89.

Costs

34Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

Cheese exported in 1990 which, by its nature, is intended for processing in a third country may be covered by an export refund under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/87 of 22 December 1987, provided that it is classified, taking account of its type and composition, under one of the product codes in the annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1706/89 of 15 June 1989 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, as defined by the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds annexed to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3445/89 of 15 November 1989 establishing the full version, applicable from 1 January 1990, of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.

[Signatures]

*

*Language of the case: German.