Request for a preliminary ruling from the FG Hamburg of 20.08.2020, submitted on 07.09.2020, on the following questions:
1. Is there an obligation under Union law on the Member States to reimburse charges and interest levied in violation of Union law, even in cases in which the reason for the reimbursement is not a violation of the legal basis of Union law established by the Court of Justice of the European Union, but a dated Court of Justice interpretation of a (sub) position of the Combined Nomenclature?
2. Are the principles of the right to interest under Union law developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union also transferable to the payment of export refunds which the Member State authority has refused to do in breach of Union law?
Previous: FG Hamburg judgment of 08/20/2020 (4 K 56/18)
Background information:
- The plaintiff seeks interest for unjustifiably not granted export refunds as well as wrongly imposed sanctions.
- The applicant exported poultry carcasses to third countries. In the period between January and June 2012, the defendant main customs office refused to grant the plaintiff export refunds for the exported goods, stating that the exported products were not of merchantable quality because the poultry carcasses were not completely plucked or had too many offal (cf. for the details, inter alia, FG Hamburg, judgments of February 18, 2014, 4 K 18/12 and 4 K 264/11), and also set a sanction against the plaintiff on the grounds that it was higher than that due to it Have applied for an export refund.
- After the Finanzgericht Hamburg ruled on the basis of the request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union dated November 24, 2011 (Joined Cases C-323/10 to C-326/10) that the presence of a few feathers was not detrimental to reimbursement (FG Hamburg, Judgments of 02/18/2014, 4 K 18/12 and 4 K 264/11) or that the carcass may have a total of up to four of the innards specified there, the defendant main customs office helped the plaintiff’s objections in such a way that the requested export refunds have been granted and the penalties set have been reimbursed.
- In a letter dated April 16, 2015, the plaintiff applied to the defendant main customs office for the unjustly not granted export refunds and the wrongly set sanctions to grant interest for the period of the withheld refunds or set sanctions, which the defendant main customs office with decision of 07/22/2015 declined. The defendant main customs office rejected your objection against this with an objection decision dated April 18, 2018.
- With her lawsuit filed on May 23, 2018, the plaintiff is pursuing her request. She thinks that her right to payment of interest follows directly from EU law. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, there is a general right under EU law to the surrender of unjustly obtained enrichments, which relates not only to the wrongly received or wrongly paid amounts themselves, but also to the reimbursement of losses due to the lack of availability of the relevant principal in the form of interest. That there is such an obligation under Union law to pay interest on any amounts that have been collected in violation of Union law, even if there is no corresponding basis for a claim in national law, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled for a large number of different taxes and duties. In Case C-365/15, the Court of Justice of the European Union once again expressly confirmed that the Member State authorities are obliged, even without a corresponding legal basis in the national provisions, to pay interest on amounts that have been withheld or collected in breach of Union law. The statements of the defendant main customs office that the requested export refund amounts were not withheld in breach of Union law or that no sanctions contrary to Union law were levied were wrong. In particular, it does not matter that it took several court decisions to clarify
- The defendant main customs office, on the other hand, emphasizes that it did not refuse the applicant the export refunds in violation of Union law, but acted in accordance with the applicable regulations – Regulation (EC) No. 800/1999 and No. 612/2009 – and national case law. Initially, the plaintiff was not entitled to export refunds. Rather, these claims resulted from the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the joined cases C-323/10 to 326/10 and the subsequent judgments of the Hamburg Finance Court. In this respect, this is to be regarded as such an event, which, both in the sphere of the economic operator and the customs authorities, could lead to the charges not initially being levied in the correct amount. In case constellations of this type, neither side would be entitled to interest in the event of a correction; the Court of Justice of the European Union had expressly confirmed this in Case C-365/15.
Sources:
