«(Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets in cereals – Standing invitation to tender – Cereal products for export to ACP States – Event causing time to begin to run for production of proof of entry for consumption into the State of destination – Second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87)»

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Common wheat – System of standing invitation to tender – Release of the security – Condition – Production of proof of entry for consumption into the State of destination – Time-limit – Whether it is possible to exceed the statutory period in the event of force majeure or the grant of further time (Commission Regulations No 3665/87, Art. 47(2), and No 2372/95, second indent of the second subparagraph of Art. 8(2)) The second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 2372/95 on the issuing of standing invitations to tender for the sale of common wheat of breadmaking quality held by the French and German intervention agencies for export to certain ACP countries in the 1995/96 marketing year must be interpreted as meaning that proof of importation of the goods into the ACP State or States concerned, which is necessary for release of the security of ECU 40 per tonne, must be supplied, in accordance with Article 47(2) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, within 12 months following the date of acceptance of the export declaration, except in cases of force majeure or where the exporter, having acted with diligence in seeking to obtain that proof, is unable to submit it within that period and the competent authority has granted an extension of the deadline.see paras 44, 48-49, 51, operative part

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 26 June 2003 (1)

((Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets in cereals – Standing invitation to tender – Cereal products for export to ACP States – Event causing time to begin to run for production of proof of entry for consumption into the State of destination – Second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87))

In Case C-334/01,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

and

on the interpretation of the second indent of the second paragraph of Article 8(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 of 10 October 1995 on the issuing of standing invitations to tender for the sale of common wheat of breadmaking quality held by the French and German intervention agencies for export to certain ACP countries in the 1995/96 marketing year (OJ 1995 L 242, p. 3) and of Article 47(2) 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 2955/94 of 5 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 312, p. 5),

THE COURT (Third Chamber),,

composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Mischo,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV and the Commission at the hearing on 28 November 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 23 January 2003,

gives the following

Community rules

Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92

Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93

...

...

...

Regulation No 2372/95

...

Regulation No 3665/87

...

Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85

.

Where evidence that all primary requirements have been met is produced within 18 months of that deadline in circumstances where the relevant secondary requirement has not been met, the sum to be repaid shall be the sum that would have been repayable under Article 23(2), less 15% of the relevant part of the sum secured.

...

Observations submitted to the Court

Reply of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

in answer to the question referred to it by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of 17 July 2001, hereby rules:

Puissochet

Macken

Cunha Rodrigues

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 June 2003.

R. Grass

J.-P. Puissochet

Registrar

President of the Third Chamber