- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-59/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) — Recovery of an export refund — Limitation period — Date from which time runs (dies a quo) — Act or omission by the economic operator — Occurrence of the prejudice — Continuous infringement — Single infringement)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0059
62014CA0059
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
30.11.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 398/3
(Case C-59/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) - Recovery of an export refund - Limitation period - Date from which time runs (dies a quo) - Act or omission by the economic operator - Occurrence of the prejudice - Continuous infringement - Single infringement))
(2015/C 398/03)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where the infringement of a provision of EU law was discovered only after the occurrence of the prejudice, the limitation period begins to run from the time when both the economic operator’s act or omission that infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the European Union or budgets managed by it have occurred.
2.Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a prejudice occurs as soon as the decision made to grant the export refund to the exporter concerned has been made.
Language of the case: German
ECLI:EU:C:2015:140
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.