- 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-77/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Austria), lodged on 15 February 2008 — Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0077
62008CN0077
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
24.5.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 128/19
(Case C-77/08)
(2008/C 128/33)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH
Respondent: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
Questions referred
1.Is the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, which provides that, for the calculation of the requested refund in the case of a differentiated refund, ‘the differentiated part of the refund shall be calculated using the particulars of quantity, weight and destination provided pursuant to Article 47’, to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘particulars of quantity, weight and destination provided pursuant to Article 47’ refers to the particulars in the specific application made pursuant to Article 47(1), with the result that the differentiated part of the refund is requested only at the time of presentation of the application within the meaning of Article 47(1)?
2.If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, the question arises as to whether, if the request for payment pursuant to Article 47(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 is already to be submitted ‘in the document used for export to enable products to qualify for a refund’ (here, the export declaration), the abovementioned provision is to be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the refund requested in relation to the differentiated part is to be made using the particulars in the export declaration, with the result that the differentiated part of the refund is requested also with the export declaration?
3.If the reply to the first question is in the negative, the question arises as to whether the abovementioned provision is to be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the refund requested in relation to the differentiated part is to be made using the documents to be presented in accordance with Article 47 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987, with the result that the differentiated part of the refund is requested only at the time of presentation of the ‘documents relating to payment’ within the meaning of Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987?
4.If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, the question arises as to whether the abovementioned provision is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of requesting the differentiated part of the refund, the presentation even of such documents within the meaning of Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 which are defective is sufficient, with the consequence in law that the sanction provision of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 is applicable also in relation to the differentiated part of the refund?
(1) OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57.