Press and Information Division
PRESS RELEASE No 07/04
13 January 2004
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-453/00
Kühne & Heitz v Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren
AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY MAY BE REQUIRED TO RE-EXAMINE DECISIONS GIVEN BY IT WHICH
HAVE BECOME FINAL WHERE IT BECOMES APPARENT FROM SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT
OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES THAT THOSE DECISIONS WERE BASED ON A
MISINTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW
The administrative body must determine to what extent it is under an obligation
to reopen its decision without adversely affecting the interests of third parties.
From December 1986 to December 1987, Kühne & Heitz, a company established in
the Netherlands, lodged a number of declarations relating to exports of poultrymeat parts.
The Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren (Commodity Board for Poultry and Eggs) initially
paid the refunds claimed but then demanded reimbursement of some of the sums
paid on the ground that the poultrymeat products exported had been classified under
the wrong tariff subheading.
In 1991, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
and Industry) dismissed the appeal brought by Kühne & Heitz against the decision
requiring reimbursement, basing its decision on the same reasoning as that relied on
by the Productschap. However, the Administrative Court, which was ruling at final instance,
did not refer a question on the interpretation of the customs nomenclature to
the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. In its judgment in the
Voogd case of 5 October 1994, the Court of Justice gave an interpretation
of the customs nomenclature in line with that advocated by Kühne & Heitz.
In December 1994, Kühne & Heitz, relying on that judgment of the Court
of Justice, lodged a complaint with the Productschap which the latter dismissed, upholding
its previous decision to refuse. Kühne & Heitz then brought an action for
annulment of that decision to refuse before the Administrative Court, seeking a review
of the customs classification of the goods in question and, as a consequence,
recovery of the refunds which it had reimbursed.
The Administrative Court asked the Court of Justice whether there is an obligation
under Community law to review, and possibly withdraw, a national administrative decision which
has become final where it becomes apparent that it is inconsistent with a
subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice. It pointed out that, under Netherlands
law, administrative bodies always have the power to reopen a final administrative decision,
provided that the interests of third parties are not adversely affected.
The Court of Justice stated, first of all, that legal certainty is one
of a number of general principles recognised by Community law. Therefore, Community law
does not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle,
to reopen administrative decisions which have become final upon expiry of the reasonable
time-limits for legal remedies or by exhaustion of those remedies.
However, the Court pointed out that, in the present case, first, Netherlands law
confers on the administrative body the power to reopen its final decision. Second,
the administrative decision became final only as a result of a judgment of
a national court against whose decisions there is no legal remedy. Third, that
judgment was based on an interpretation of Community law which, in the light
of a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice, was incorrect and which
had been adopted without a question being referred to the Court of Justice
for a preliminary ruling. Fourth, the person concerned complained to the administrative body
immediately after becoming aware of the judgment of the Court of Justice.
In such circumstances, the administrative body concerned is obliged under Community law to
review its decision in order to take account of the interpretation of the
relevant provision of Community law given in the meantime by the Court of
Justice. The administrative body will have to determine on the basis of the
outcome of that review to what extent it is under an obligation to
reopen its decision without adversely affecting the interests of third parties.
Available languages: Dutch, English, French, German. The full texts of the judgment can be found on the internet (www.curia.eu.int ). In principle they will be available from midday CET on the day of delivery. For additional information please contact Christopher Fretwell Tel: (00352) 4303 3355 Fax: (00352) 4303 2731. |
Regulation No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975
Case C-151/93 [1994] ECR I-4915