EN

C 7/16

Official Journal of the European Union

2.If the first question is, in principle, to be answered to the effect that an obstacle exists, does the answer change where it appears that, after the European order for payment has been declared enforceable, service of the order for payment was not consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of Regulation No 1896/2006?

3.If the second question is to be answered to the effect that an obstacle exists: May the court which issued and declared enforceable the European order for payment decide, of its own motion or upon application by the claimant, that the declaration of enforceability of the order for payment is invalid where it appears that, after the European order for payment has been declared enforceable, service of the order for payment was not consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of Regulation No 1896/2006?

4.If the third question is to be answered in the affirmative: May the court which issued and declared enforceable the European order for payment, irrespective of the conduct, termination or outcome of the proceedings on enforcement before the court in the Member State of enforcement, decide on the invalidity of the declaration of enforceability of the order for payment?

1()Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

(Case C-655/22)

(2023/C 7/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I (*) GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt HZA (*)

Questions referred

11.Is Article 2 of Regulation No 1360/2013 () to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer should have submitted its claim for repayment of levies unduly paid before 30 September 2014?

2.If the first question is answered in the negative: In a case such as this (definitively fixed levies applied in breach of EU law, the reimbursement of which was requested only one year after Regulation No 1360/2013 retroactively established a lower coefficient), is the competent authority entitled to refuse to reimburse production levies unduly paid on the basis of national provisions on the force of res judicata, of the time limit for levy assessments under national law and of the principle of legal certainty under EU law?

1()Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years (OJ 2013, L 343, p. 2).

___________ (*) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.