Judgment_paragraph 5. · Granaria BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten (101/78)

5.The Court had requested the Commission to supply particulars of the decisions which have been taken in the Member States following its judgments of 5 July 1977 in Case 114/76, Bela-Mühle v Grows-Farm, in Case 116/76, Granaría BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten, in Joined Cases 119 and 120/76, Ölmühle Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof and Firma Kurt A. Becher v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Nord [1977] ECR 1211, 1247 and 1269, and its judgment of 25 May 1978 in Joined Cases 83 and 94/76, 4, 15 and 40/77, Bayerische HNL v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209, and especially in connexion with proceedings which may have been brought for reimbursement of amounts paid under the system introduced by Regulation No 563/76.The Commission answered that apart from the present case, no proceedings have been commenced, except in the Federal Republic where there are five pending actions. They are concerned with the refusal by the administrative authority to grant applications for reimbursement of the security on the ground that the importers concerned have been able to pass the charge on to their purchasers and with its refusal to issue protein certificates. Some two thousand applications have been lodged with the relevant German administrative authority; pending the outcome of the five abovementioned pending actions those procedures have been suspended.In the Federal Republic a claim for DM 2.9 million has also been lodged with the administrative authority representing reimbursement of the difference between the purchase price of the skimmed-milk powder and the standard value of imported value of imponed feedingstuffs. The national administrative authority has rejected this claim and the Commission expects that proceedings will shortly be commenced in this connexion.In Belgium the administrative authority has rejected two claims for repayment of the security.In Denmark no claim for repayment of the security has been lodged with the administrative authority.In France objections have been raised against the failure to repay the security.In Ireland a claim for repayment of the security has been rejected on the ground that the importer concerned had passed the charge on to his purchasers.In Italy a claim for repayment has been lodged relating to a security which has not yet been declared forfeit in the absence of certain formalities.In the Netherlands letters have been sent to the administrative authority placing the onus of liability for the damage resulting from the regulation which has been declared to be invalid on the State; these letters have remained unanswered.Unlike the other Member States, the United Kingdom has repaid the securities which had been forfeited.