Language of document :

Notice for the OJ

 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

13 January 2004

in Case C-453/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Kühne & Heitz NV v Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren,(1)

(Poultrymeat ( Export refunds ( Failure to refer a question for a preliminary ruling ( Final administrative decision ( Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision ( Legal certainty ( Primacy of Community law ( Principle of cooperation ( Article 10 EC)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-453/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Kühne & Heitz NV and Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren, on the interpretation of Community law and, in particular, the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

The principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC imposes on an administrative body an obligation to review a final administrative decision, where an application for such review is made to it, in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in the meantime by the Court where

(    under national law, it has the power to reopen that decision;

(    the administrative decision in question has become final as a result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance;

(    that judgment is, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234(3) EC; and

(    the person concerned complained to the administrative body immediately after becoming aware of that decision of the Court.

____________

1 - OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001