Judgment_paragraph 1. · 216/78

1.Beljatzky observes first that in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 44/76 (Eier-Kontor) the granting of any subsidy and the charging of any levy are subject to the condition that the ultimate use should be in accordance with the purpose prescribed within the meaning of Community law.The present dispute nevertheless differs to a considerable degree from the situation considered by the Court in the above-mentioned case.Beljatzky put the imported goods under the control of the German customs authorities. Further, a security was provided. When that security was released by the German customs authorities, acting in this matter on behalf of the Commission of the European Communities, they officially established that the goods had been used in accordance with the prescribed purpose. It is thus impossible to argue against the plaintiff, as was done in Case 44/76, that he relied upon mere declarations and statements by the Commission.According to Beljatzky it is furthermore possible that settlement of the point of law referred to the Court of Justice by the Finanzgericht is not directly necessary for the latter to give judgment in the main action.With regard to the second question Beljatzky considers that Community law, in particular Regulation No 1259/72, does not establish an independent provision allowing for subsequent recovery or restitution. The point concerning the legal justification for such recovery can thus be settled only in terms of national law.On the basis of those considerations Beljatzky refrains from putting: forward conclusions with regard to the first question which might bind him in law and suggests that the reply to the second question should be in the negative.