16.5.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/10

(Case C-77/08)

(Export refund - Differentiated refund - Time of the submission of the request - Export declaration - No proof of clearance for release for consumption in the destination country - Penalty)

2009/C 113/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Interpretation of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as regards the recovery of amounts unduly paid and sanctions (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57) — Concept of the request for the differentiated part of the export refund — Imposition of the penalty in the event of incorrect information with regard to the destination country featuring in the export declaration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a differentiated refund, the differentiated part of the refund is requested not at the time of presentation of the application provided for in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 or of the documents relating to payment of the refund provided for in Article 47(2) of that regulation, but as soon as the document referred to in Article 3(5) of the regulation is presented. The inclusion in that document of information capable of leading to a refund in excess of the refund applicable and which is found to be incorrect gives rise, as a result, subject to the cases laid down in the third and seventh subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of that regulation, to the imposition of the penalty prescribed in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1).

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

* * *