JUDGMENT OF 22. 1. 1975 — CASE 55/74 UNKEL v HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-JONAS

In Case 55/74 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Hamburg for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

The judgment making the reference and the written observations submitted under Article 20 of the EEC Statute of the Court may be summarized as follows:

I — Facts and procedure

In April 1972 the plaintiff in the main proceedings obtained customs clearance from the Hauptzollamt Würzburg for a consignment of lard intended to be exported from Germany to Britain via Rotterdam. The Hauptzollamt Würzburg issued two ‘control copies’, the issue and use of which are provided for by Regulation (EEC) No 2315/69 of the Commission of 19 November 1969 (OJ L 295 of 24. 11. 1969 p. 14). The customs office of exit at Rotterdam certified on both copies that the goods had left the territory of the Community and sent the two control copies to the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, the competent authority in Germany for the payment for export refunds.

By application dated 8 November 1972 and received by the defendant on 10 November 1972, on the forms provided for by the German regulations, the plaintiff applied for the grant of an export refund. By decision dated 15 November 1972 this application was rejected as being out of time since it had been received on a date subsequent to the expiration of the six months' time-limit after the completion of the customs export formalities laid down by Article 10 of Regulation No 1041/67/EEC of the Commission.

Following the rejection of the objection which it had made against this decision, the plaintiff in the main action appealed to the Finanzgericht Hamburg which, taking the view that questions of the interpretation of Community law arose, by order dated 26 June 1974 stayed the proceedings and submitted the following questions under Article 177 of the EEC to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

1) Does the control copy completed pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1041/67 amount to a statement of intention to export the products in question and qualify for the refund (Article 1, first paragraph, first sentence, of Regulation (EEC) No 1041/67) and thus to an application for the grant of the refund fixed, pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 121/67?

2) Are the application (Article 15 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 121/67), proof of origin of the goods (Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 177/67) and declaration that the goods are in free circulation (Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1041/67) included among the documents in support of the claim within the meaning of Article 10 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1041/67, which must be lodged within a timelimit of six months from the date of completion of the customs export formalities?

3) Does the full completion of the control copy amount to such declaration and proof of origin of the goods and of their being in free circulation?

The order of reference dated 26 June 1974 was registered at the Court Registry on 25 July 1974. After hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the opinion of the Advocate-General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without a preparatory inquiry.

Written observations were submitted by the Commission, the plaintiff in the main action and the defendant in the main action.

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

A — On the first question

1. Observations of the plaintiff in the main action

According to the plaintiff in the main action the conclusion at which the Court arrived in Case 94/71 (Judgment of 6 June 1972, Schlüter and Maack v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, Rec. 1972, p. 307) should also prevail in the present case. The Court took the view in that judgment that a written manifestation of intention in accordance with Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67, which is received by the authorities competent for refunds, must be regarded as an application for a refund. It appears from the spirit and scope, as well as from the contents, of the control copy that it constitutes a written manifestation of intention in the same way as the exit certificate in Case 94/71. Control copies are used only in certain cases, in particular ‘when the application of a Community measure adopted in respect of imports or exports of goods, or of movement of goods within the Community, is conditional upon proof that such goods are intended for the use and/or destination provided for or prescribed by that measure …’ (Article 1 of Regulation No 2315/69 of the Commission of 19 November 1969, OJ L 295 of 24. 11. 1969, p. 14). When it is drawn up and used for export, the control copy becomes a specific export document, the use of which indicates the desire on the part of the exporter to claim a refund. The first recital of Regulation No 2586/69 of the Commission of 22 December 1969 (OJ L 322 of 24. 12. 1969, p. 27) has stated that the use of the Community transit document should be substituted for that of the exit certificate.

The contents of the control copy as laid down in Article 4 (2) of Regulation No 2315/69 and Article 5 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 2586/69, show that in completing as appropriate the various sections the exporter ‘declares his intention to export the product in question with the benefit of the export refund’. In contrast to the exit certificate, the control copy does not contain the words ‘I certify that these goods qualify for an export refund’, but the particulars and the signature of the exporter on the control copy show the intention to receive the refund.

A comparison of the control copy with the application for an export refund provided for by the national law of the Federal Republic shows moreover that the application provides no other particulars than those which are already contained in the control copy. Since it contains all the information necessary to the national authorities to proceed with the refund, such as stating the export date, and since acceptance is considered to be the completion of the customs export formalities (Article 1 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67 of 21 December 1967), the control copy thus contains, as the Court has stated in respect of the exit certificate, an application for the grant of the refund fixed in accordance with Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67/EEC.

The plaintiff in the main action suggests the following reply to the first question:

The control copy completed pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1041/67 amounts to a statement of intention to export the product in question and qualify for the refund and thus to an application for the grant of the refund fixed, pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67.

2. Observations of the defendant in the main action

The defendant in the main action gives a general summary of the procedure for export refunds as applied in the Federal Republic of Germany. This procedure comprises in the first place customs control, as provided for in Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67, in which the control copy constitutes the voucher. Having been seen and examined with regard to its contents by the forwarding customs office, the original control copy accompanies the goods until they have left the Community or arrived at their destination, and is endorsed by the customs office at the destination which sends it directly to the defendant in the main action. Apart from this customs procedure, the procedure for export refunds comprises another administrative procedure relating to the examination, recognition and settlement of the right to the refund by the defendant in the main action. This administrative procedure comprises in particular verification, by means of the control copy and possible reports from analytical laboratories, of compliance with the conditions imposed, basically by Regulation No 1041/67, for the refund (Community origin, quality of the goods, goods in free circulation).

In many cases Community legislation, which has exhaustively laid down the conditions for refund, has nevertheless left open the question of the form in which these conditions must be proved. In particular in Regulation No 1041/67 it has left a discretion to the Member States to prescribe the documents required to prove the entitlement to the refund (Judgment of 17 February 1970, Case 31/69, Commission v Italy, Rec. 1970, p. 35).

Finally, the procedure for export refunds includes a procedure for control by the customs offices and prior checking of accounts.

As regards the first question raised by the national court, the defendant in the main action does not think that the solution arrived at by the Court in its judgment of 6 June 1972 (Case 94/71, Schlüter & Maack), which related to an exit certificate, can be applied when it is a question of a control copy. On comparing these two documents the following differences appear:

a) Whereas the exit certificate was created exclusively for the purposes of the export refund and published as an annex to Regulation No 1041/67, the control copy depends on Regulation No 2315/69 (OJ L 295 of 24. 11. 1969, p. 14), adopted as an implementing measure of Community transit procedure.

b) The control copy does not contain express references to the procedure for export refunds, which in Case 94/71 were in the Advocate-General's view an essential indication enabling the exit certificate to be regarded as a declaration of intention within the meaning of Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67.

c) The customs office of departure does not send a control copy directly to the authority concerned with paying the refund.

Since in the Federal Republic of Germany, moreover, the manifestation of intention within the meaning of Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67 has no effect except by virtue of an act enabling the intention of the person concerned to be inferred, the control copy could not constitute on its own the statement of intention required by Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67.

It remains to be considered whether a tacit manifestation of the statement of intention required by Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67, or the control copy, on its own, may be regarded as equivalent to an application for the refund required by Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67.

The first possibility has already been covered by the Court of Justice, which in Case 94/71 required writing.

The second possibility ought likewise to be ruled out on the following grounds:

References to refunds in the control copies do not relate specifically to export refunds.

The control copy, which is a general voucher, is of probative value, according to the community provisions relating to refunds, only in respect of transport effected across another Member State.

The time for claiming payment in Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67 begins to run as from the time the customs formalities are completed, that is to say, as from the receipt of the control copy by the competent office for refunds. If the control copy itself represented the application for a refund, the application would never be late, since it would itself start the time running. Moreover, the return of the control copy as a transport document would deprive the administration of it as a ‘refund application’.

If it were accepted that the submission of the control copy could constitute a refund application within the meaning of Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67, the administration would be deprived of any possibility of verifying within the time-limit whether the application was being pursued. The payment of the refund would not be possible so long as the administration did not have the national form containing the technical facts necessary for this purpose.

Since the control copy is not adapted to serve as complete proof of all the conditions for refunds in the law on refunds, it has to be supplemented with national forms specified by the Member States under their discretionary power defined by the Court in Case 31/69.

The complementary requirement of such a national form, to be supplied within a certain time-limit and regarded as one of the documents within the meaning of Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67, does not violate the principle of equality of treatment of all the commercial agents working in the market, since this equality is in any event not assured at present in so far as the procedures for payment are not yet regulated in a uniform manner.

The defendant in the main action therefore considers that the reply to the first question should be that the control copy completed pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 1041/67 does not amount to a statement of intention within the meaning of Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67 and therefore does not imply an application within the meaning of Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67.

3. Observations of the Commission

According to the Commission the control copy constitutes a special copy of the Community transit documents T1/T2 provided for by Regulation No 542/69 of 18 March 1969 on Community transit (OJ L 77 of 29. 3. 1969, p. 1). Regulation No 2315/69 of the Commission, introducing the use of the control copy as a customs form, contains no indication of the use of the control copy in the context of the legislation relating to export refunds. The use and special function of the control copy in so far as it is concerned with customs formalities relating to export refunds applicable to agricultural products is defined only in Article 5 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67/EEC, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2586/69, which provides that the proof required of the export of goods must be given by the production of the said control copy which in this respect has replaced the ‘exit certificate’ originally provided for by Regulation No 1041/67. Even for the purpose of this precise end the conditions of use of the control copy were fixed only for the specific case of export to third countries preceded by Community transit. This was an objective limitation of the use of the control copy which was reflected in the contents of the form provided for in the annex to Regulation No 2315/69.

Compared with the former ‘exit certificate’ provided for by Regulation No 1041/67/EEC, this form has been very much simplified in its contents and no longer gives any indication capable of being regarded unambiguously as an application for payment of the refund, as proof that the goods were in free circulation or as proof of Community origin of the goods.

The necessity of avoiding discriminations to the detriment of exporters and persons entitled to refunds depending on the Member State from which the goods in question are exported led the Court of Justice to find, in the judgment of 6 June 1972 in Case 94/71 Schlüter & Maack, that the application for payment of the refund was already implicit in the lodging of the ‘exit certificate’ provided for by Regulation No 1041/67/EEC properly completed with the customs office of departure.

The control copy could in any case not be equated with the exit certificate, which, both in its form and in its contents, had many basic characteristics enabling it to be equated with an application for refund, which characteristics are missing from the control copy.

The converse answer would attribute a quite relative value to the principle that refunds can be granted only on application and not without being asked for. In the same way the time-limit for claiming repayment provided in Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67/EEC for the purpose of ensuring that management and accountability were as efficient as possible would be deprived of effect.

B — On the second question

1. Observations of the plaintiff in the main action

1. The question whether the application is one of the documents provided for by Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67/EEC which must be lodged within the time-limit of six months following the day on which the customs export formalities were completed should, according to the plaintiff in the main action, receive an affirmative reply. The application within the meaning of Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67 constitutes the prior condition for the refund. This appears both from the recitals to Regulation No 1041/67 and from the ratio legis of its Article 10. To the extent that the control copy properly completed and signed constitutes a declaration of intention to export the product in question with the benefit of the refund, the application is always lodged within the time-limit, save when there is delay in transmission from the original office to the competent office for refunds, which would constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 9 (2). The supplementary application provided for by German law is not included among the documents referred to in Article 10 (2). The judgment of 6 June 1972 stated that although Member States could, for reasons connected with the organization of their departments, require exporters likewise to make an application worded in the forms laid down by national law, they could not sanction the disregard of this obligation by taking away the right of refund.

2. The declarations relating to the origin of the goods and that they are of the requisite quality to be put into free circulation are included among the documents within the meaning of Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67, as appears from Articles 6 and 7 (1) of the same regulation and Article 6 (1) of Regulation No 177/67. The plaintiff in the main action therefore proposes that the reply should be as follows to the second question: The application worded in accordance with Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67/EEC, proof of origin of the goods in the form of a declaration in accordance with Article 7 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67 in conjunction with Article 6 (1) of Regulation No 177/67/EEC and the declaration relating to the requisite quality of the goods for free circulation in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 1041/67 are included among the documents within the meaning of Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67/EEC, which must be lodged within a time-limit of six months following the day on which the customs export formalities were completed.

2. Observations of the defendant in the main action

The defendant in the main action considers that not only does the application required in Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67 form part of the documents within the meaning of Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67 but so do the national forms. In Case 94/71 the Court decided otherwise, but on the basis of other premises, in particular that the form of the application is governed in an exhaustive manner by Community law and that a more complete national form was not subject to the rules on time-limits in Article 10 (2).

The declaration of origin required by Articles 6 (1) of Regulation No 177/67 and 7 (1) of Regulation No 1041/67 and required in a separate written form in Germany is part, as a basic condition of the refund, of the documents (Unterlagen) which are required to be lodged under Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67.

The same is true of the declaration of free circulation required in the national form. In this respect the control copy alone does not provide sufficient controls. This is why the Federal Government provided for the issue of a special declaration concerned with the fitness of the goods, qualifying for the refund, to be put into free circulation. This declaration is also part of the documents (Unterlagen) within the meaning of Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67.

3. Observations of the Commission

According to the Commission Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67/EEC is intended to ensure that all declarations, certificates and proofs intended to enable the competent body liable for payment to verify whether a refund can be granted in respect of the goods and to check the regularity of the export, are provided within the time-limit.

The Community origin of the product and the fact that it is in free circulation are essential conditions for payment of the refund. The declarations and evidence relating thereto are thus part of the documents (Unterlagen) provided for in Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67. These documents must likewise include the application for payment of the refund required by Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67/EEC.

C — On the third question

1. Observations of the plaintiff in the main action

The payment of the export refund on pigmeat is subject to proof:

that the products are in free circulation within the Community (Article 6 of Regulation No 1041/67);

that the products are of Community origin (Article 6 of Regulation No 177/67);

that the products have left the geographical territory of the Community unaltered (Article 3 of Regulation No 1041/67).

If the control copy is fully completed, it provides evidence not only of the fulfilment of the third condition but also of the first two.

The fact that the product is in free circulation within the Community appears from the remark ‘not applicable’ made by the exporter under the heading ‘previous customs procedure’ and also by the remarks and particulars given under the headings which refer to refunds. Since only goods in free circulation within the Community can benefit from a refund, the declaration as a result of which there is a right to a refund in respect of the goods, implies the declaration that the goods are in free circulation within the Community.

As regards the origin of the goods, the plaintiff in the main action observes that whereas Article 6 (1) of Regulation No 177/67/EEC appears to require proof additional to the simple declaration of the exporter, Article 7 (3) of Regulation No 1041/67, made subsequently, provides that ‘the exporter must declare the origin of the product in question in terms of the rules in force in the Member State referred to in paragraph 2’. Further, ‘this declaration shall be verified in the same way as the other items in the export declaration’. Thus a simple declaration is sufficient and evidence is required only in case of doubt. The declaration of the exporter relating to the origin of the goods is likewise contained in the control copy, since it appears from the remark ‘not applicable’ under the heading ‘previous customs procedure’ that the goods have not yet crossed a customs frontier, that they have therefore not been imported either from a third country or from the German Democratic Republic.

2. Observations of the defendant in the main action

The control copy contains no indications either of the origin of the products (its issue is not limited only to goods originating in the Community) or of the fact of being in free circulation. The remark ‘not applicable’ under the heading ‘previous customs procedure’ is too vague to provide information on the Community nature of the goods.

In the opinion of the defendant in the main action, the fact of correctly completing the control copy can be considered as evidence of the fitness of the goods to be put into free circulation only if the particulars in column 3 (‘previous customs procedure’) unambiguously allow this construction. According to Regulation No 2315/69 and Article 5 of Regulation No 1041/67, the control copy is limited to establishing that goods capable of attracting a refund have left the Community or have been delivered, according to their destination, in the Community.

The answer to the third question should be that the fact of fully completing the control copy does not prove the origin of the goods, and proves their requisite fitness for being put into free circulation only where this condition of refund results unambiguously from the declarations relating to the previous customs procedure contained in column 3 of the form.

3. Observations of the Commission

In the Commission's opinion the control copy gives no information capable of being regarded unambiguously as proof that the goods are in free circulation or as proof of the Community origin of the goods. The remark ‘not applicable’ under the heading ‘previous customs procedure’ shows only that the exporter does not wish to make a declaration on this point.

III — Oral procedure

The plaintiff in the main action, represented by Messrs Festge and Modest, and the Commission, represented by Mr Kalbe, presented their oral observations at the hearing on 20 November 1974.

The Advocate-General delivered his opinion on 10 December 1974.

Law

1. By order dated 26 June 1974, filed at the Court Registry on 25 July 1974, the Finanzgericht Hamburg referred, under Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, three questions on the interpretation of certain provisions of Regulations Nos 121/67 of the Council of 13 June 1967, on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (OJ No 117 of 19. 6. 1967, p. 2283) and 177/67 of the Council of 27 June 1967 laying down general rules for granting export refunds on pigmeat (OJ No 130 of 28. 6. 1967, p. 2614), of Regulation No 1041/67 of the Commission of 21 December 1967 on detailed rules for the application of export refunds on products subject to a single price system (OJ No 314 of 23. 12. 1967, p. 9), as amended by Regulation No 1056/68 of 23 July 1968 (OJ L 179 of 25. 7. 1968, p. 28), 499/69 of 17 March 1969 (OJ L 69 of 20. 3. 1969, p. 1) and 2586/69 of 22 December 1969 (OJ L 322 of 24. 12. 1969, p. 27). The questions raised relate to the formal conditions and time-limits for applications for export refunds of certain agricultural products in force in April 1972, the period in which the export in question took place.

2. The first question asks the Court whether the document called the ‘control copy’, provided for by Article 1 of Regulation No 2315/69 (OJ L 295 of 24. 11. 1969, p. 14) on the use of Community transit documents, completed pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 1041/67 of the Commission (as amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 2586/69), amounts to an application for the grant of a refund within the meaning of Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67.

3. Regulation No 1041/67, made inter alia to ensure the implementation of Regulations Nos 121/67 and 177/67 of the Council relating to the organization of the markets and the grant of export refunds on pigmeat, lays down detailed rules for the application of export refunds. Article 5, in its original form, provided that where, before leaving the geographical territory of the Community, a product crosses Community territory other than that where customs export formalities have been completed, and pending the introduction of a Community transit system, proof that the product has left the geographical territory of the Community shall be furnished in the form of a document called an ‘exit certificate’, the model of which is shown in the annex to the regulation.

4. The Court of Justice has recognized in its judgment of 6 June 1972 in Case 94/71 that the exit certificate, submitted to the competent department and accepted by it, showed sufficiently the exporter's intention to claim a refund and therefore constituted an application for a refund within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation No 121/67.

5. Since Regulation No 2315/69 of the Commission of 19 November 1969 introduced a Community transit system, Article 5 of Regulation No 1041/67 was amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 2586/69 so that proof that the product had left the territory of the Community was no longer to be furnished by the production of an exit certificate but by that of the control copy provided for by Article 1 of Regulation No 2315/69. Although the control copy does not adopt all the particulars in the exit certificate, it contains headings for the additional information which, according to Article 5 as amended of Regulation No 1041/67, are to be completed when it is a question of products benefiting from refunds.

6. Under Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 121/67, export refunds on pigmeat are granted only on application by the person concerned. Although, having regard to the necessities of the proper functioning of the complex system of export refunds, Article 15 must be interpreted as implying a written application, formalism which would go beyond the necessities of efficient control must be avoided. When, therefore, the commercial operator completes the control copy in accordance with Article 5 (2) of Regulation No 1041/67 by clearly stating that the exported goods are entitled to refunds, he shows sufficiently clearly his intention to benefit from them so that the control copy is equivalent to an application for a refund. This is even more so when the control copy contains explanatory notes indicating explicitly the heading which must be completed when it relates to the export of goods entitled to a refund.

7. It is therefore right to reply to the first question that the submission to the competent national authority for the grant of refunds of the control copy referred to in Article 1 of Regulation No 2315/69 and Article 5 of Regulation No 1041/67, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 2586/69, is equivalent to an application for a refund if this copy contains information enabling it to be seen that it relates to goods benefiting from this refund. It is for the national court, in case of doubt, to decide in each case whether this is so.

8. The second question seeks to ascertain whether the application for a refund referred to in Article 15 of Regulation No 121/67, the proof of origin of the goods required, as regards export refunds on pigmeat, by Article 6 of Regulation No 177/67 and the declarations relating to the requisite quality of the goods for being put into free circulation, required by Article 6 of Regulation No 1041/67, are included among the documents in support of the claim which, under Article 10 of this regulation, must be lodged within a time-limit of six months following the day on which the customs export formalities were completed. This question seeks to ascertain whether it is sufficient that the application for a refund is lodged within a time-limit of six months or whether the other documents relating to the fulfilment of the conditions on which the refund depends must also be so lodged.

9. The term ‘documents’ (Unterlagen) used in Article 10 (2) refers not only to the application for the refund but to all the documents which the competent authority of each Member State needs to verify whether the conditions to which the grant of the refund is subject are fulfilled. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the time does not start to run until the customs formalities are completed. A time-limit of this extent is not required merely to lodge an application and the time-limit is therefore for the assembly of all the evidence which may be required.

10. It is therefore proper to reply to the second question that the documents (Unterlagen) referred to in Article 10 of Regulation No 1041/67 must include, besides the application for a refund, all the documents enabling the competent authority to verify whether the conditions to which the grant of the refund is subject are fulfilled.

11. The third question asks whether, when the different headings which the control copy contains are completed by the party concerned, it amounts to the declarations and proofs relatings to the origin of the goods and the quality required for them to be put into free circulation, to which conditions the grant of a refund is subject.

12. Under Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 1041/67 a refund is granted, in particular for the products in question, only if they are of Community origin, are in free circulation within the Community and are of sound and fair marketable quality. The headings provided for in the control copy do not on their own make it possible to determine in every case that all these conditions are fulfilled. It is for the national authorities to determine in each case the probative value in this respect of the remarks on the control copy or the necessity for supplementary vouchers.

Costs

13. The costs incurred by the Commission, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable, and as these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action pending before the national court, the costs are a matter for that court. On those grounds,

THE COURT in answer to the questions referred to it by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court dated 26 June 1974, hereby rules:

(1) The submission to the competent national authority for the grant of refunds of the control copy referred to in Article 1 of Regulation No 2315/69 and Article 5 of Regulation No 1041/67, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 2586/69, is equivalent to an application for a refund if this copy contains information enabling it to be seen that it relates to goods benefiting from this refund.

(2) The documents (Unterlagen) referred to in Article 10 of Regulation No 1041/67 must include, besides the application for a refund, all the documents enabling the competent authority to verify whether the conditions to which the grant of the refund is subject are fulfilled.

(3) Since the headings provided for in the control copy do not on their own make it possible to determine in every case that all these conditions are fulfilled, it is for the national authorities to determine in each case the probative value in this respect of the remarks on the control copy or the necessity for supplementary vouchers.

1 Translator's Note: The court is here asking for an interpretation of the word ‘Unterlagen’ in the German text of the Regulation; no corresponding word appears in the authentic English text, where the phrase: ‘Die Unterlagen fur die Zahlung der Erstattung sind innerhalb einer Ausschlußfrist von 6 Monaten . . . einzureichen’ is translated as: ‘The time-limit for claiming payment of the refund shall be six months …’

2 Translator's Note: This section of the control copy is described in Article 5 of Regulation No 2586/69 as being entitled ‘Special Remarks’. In fact, this section of the form, in the Annex to Regulation No 2315/69, is headed ‘Additional Information’.