JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 1973 — CASE 142/73 MATHES & SCHURR v EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE

In Case 142/73 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Hessisches Finanzgericht (VIIth Senate) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and M. Sørensen, Presidents of Chambers, R. Monaco, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, C. Ó Dálaigh and A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, Judges, Advocate-General: J. P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedure

II — Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice

Grounds of judgment

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

II —. Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice

1. firma Mathes & Schurr (plaintiff in the main action) firstly criticizes the terms in which the preliminary question is expressed, believing it to have been formulated so as to give rise to the impression that the plaintiff in the main action is one of those dishonest exporters who obtain the grant of excessive refunds by fraud.

2. The Commission outlines the refund system for exports of agricultural products to third countries, as laid down by Regulation No 19/62 and elaborated by Regulations Nos 92/62, 131/62 and, subsequently, by Regulations Nos 162/64 and 164/64.

1. By order of 7 May 1973, registered at the Court on 15 June 1973, the Hessisches Finanzgericht, pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, referred to the Court the question whether Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 19/62 of the Council of 4 April 1962 (OJ p. 933/62) lays down as a condition for the grant of export refunds that the exported goods and their final destination must correspond with the statements contained in the documents drawn up for this purpose, and whether this provision, in cases where the goods in fact exported are of lesser value than those stated in the said documents, does not allow the grant of the refund corresponding to the quality of those goods.

2. Article 20 of Regulation No 19/62, read in conjunction with the legislation adopted for its implementation, especially Regulations Nos 55/62 EEC of the Council (OJ p. 1583/62) and 141/64 EEC of the Council (OJ p. 2666/64), left to the discretion of the Member States the question whether or not to grant refunds for the export of agricultural products to third countries.

3. Accordingly, in the context of the optional export refunds, the Member States were required to take account only of those products which at the least fulfilled the conditions set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature.

4. It must therefore be concluded that, in cases where the goods in fact exported did not correspond to the information given in the export documents,

5. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable, and as these proceedings are, insofar as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action pending before a national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the plaintiff in the main action and of the Commission; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 177; Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 19/62 of the Council of 4 April 1962, especially Article 20; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, especially Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT in answer to the question referred to it by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, in accordance with the order of that court dated 7 May 1973, hereby rules: In cases where the goods in fact exported did not correspond to the information given in the export documents:

(a) Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 19/62 required the national authorities to reduce the refund granted so that it should not exceed the maximum limits laid down for the goods in fact exported and,

(b) subject to this obligation, it was for those authorities to decide, according to their national law, upon the necessary further consequences.