EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-59/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0059

62014CN0059

February 7, 2014
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/13

(Case C-59/14)

2014/C 142/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred

1.In a case where the infringement of a provision of Community law was discovered only after the occurrence of prejudice, does the irregularity which is necessary for the commencement of the limitation period under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) and which is defined in Article 1(2) of that regulation presuppose, in addition to an act or omission by the economic operator, that the general budget of the European Union or budgets managed by the European Union were prejudiced, so that the limitation period begins to run only after the occurrence of the prejudice, or does the limitation period begin, irrespective of when the prejudice occurs, with the act or omission of the economic operator which constitutes an infringement of a provision of Community law?

2.If the reply to the first question is that the limitation period does not begin until the occurrence of the prejudice: In connection with a demand for repayment of an export refund which has been definitively granted, is there already prejudice within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 when an amount equal to the export refund within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 565/80 has been paid to the exporter, without the security under Article 6 of that regulation having already been released, or is there no prejudice until the release of the security or the definitive grant of the export refund?

Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia