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 .
HOWEVER, IN FIXING THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF THESE REFUNDS AND THEIR AMOUNTS, THE MEMBER STATES WERE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE MAXIMUM LIMITS LAID DOWN BY THE COMMUNITY AND THE RULES NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL SYSTEM PROVIDED FOR BY REGULATION NO 19/62 .
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS OPEN TO THEM TO ADOPT CRITERIA MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR BY THE COMMUNITY RULES .
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 .
ACCORDINGLY, IN THE EVENT OF THE GOODS EXPORTED NOT CORRESPONDING TO THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE EXPORT DOCUMENTS, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE REFUND WAS GRANTED, THE MEMBER STATE WAS OBLIGED AT THE VERY LEAST TO REDUCE THE REFUND SO THAT IT DID NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT LAID DOWN FOR THE PRODUCT EXPORTED .
SUBJECT TO THIS OBLIGATION, IT WAS FOR THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO THEIR NATIONAL LAW THE FURTHER CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN OCCURRENCE .
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,
( 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 ON THE NECESSARY FURTHER CONSEQUENCES .
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 .
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 .
