You are on page 1of 1

15.10.

2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 257/1

I
(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Appeal brought on 24 September 2003 by Magnus Kill- bedrijfsleven of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry
inger against the order made on 8 July 2003 by the Court on 11 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T- between Vonk Dairy Products B.V. and Productschap Zuivel on
186/03 Magnus Killinger v Federal Republic of Germany, the following questions:
Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-396/03 P)
1. Should Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No
(2005/C 257/01) 3665/87 (1), as applicable at the material time, be inter-
preted as meaning that, if variable refunds are definitively
(Language of the case: German) paid after acceptance of the import documents, subsequent
evidence that the goods have been re-exported may lead to
the conclusion that the refunds have been wrongly paid
An appeal against the order of 8 July 2003 by the Court of only in the event of abuse on the part of the exporter?
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-186/03
Magnus Killinger v Federal Republic of Germany, Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 24 September 2003 by Magnus 2. If question 1 must be answered in the negative, what criteria
Killinger, represented by T. Scheuernstuhl, Rechtsanwalt, Würz- apply to enable it to be established when the re-exportation
burger Straße, D-97440 Werneck. of goods necessarily leads to the conclusion that definitively
paid variable refunds were wrongly paid?
The Court of Justice of the European Communities (Fourth
Chamber) made an order on 3 June 2005 in which it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders the appellant to pay his own costs. 3. What criteria apply to enable it to be established whether
there has been a continuous or repeated irregularity as
referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (2)? The College
would particularly like to know whether a continuous or
repeated irregularity is deemed to have occurred where the
irregularity relates to a relatively small proportion of all
transactions in a given period and the transactions in which
an irregularity has been detected always concern different
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van consignments.
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 30
June 2005 in Vonk Dairy Products B.V., Ittevoort v
Productschap Zuivel (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the
(Case C-279/05) system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ L 351, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial
(2005/C 257/02) interests (OJ L 312, p. 1).

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-


pean Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het