Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:367
Date: 2002-06-13
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Concepts: Procedure for clearance of accounts
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Luxembourg

Summary of the Judgment 
Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Preparation of decisions — 
Written communication to the Member States by the Commission of the results of its 
checks — Contents — Conditions — Non-observance — Effect 
(Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, 
Art. 8(1), first subpara.) 
I - 5373 
SUMMARY — CASE C-158/00 
Under the first subparagraph of 
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 lay­
ing down detailed rules for the application 
of Regulation No 729/70 regarding the 
procedure for the clearance of the accounts 
of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, when the 
Commission considers that expenditure 
was not effected according to Community 
rules, it must communicate its findings to 
the Member State concerned. That com­
munication must state the corrective meas­
ures to be taken to ensure future com­
pliance, include an evaluation of any 
expenditure which the Commission may 
propose to exclude and make reference to 
Regulation No 1663/95. The Member 
State must be given two months to reply 
to it. In that regard, the Commission is 
bound, in its relations with the Member 
States, to respect the conditions it has 
imposed on itself by implementing regu­
lations. A failure to observe those con­
ditions may, depending on its significance, 
deprive of its efficacy the procedural guar­
antee accorded to Member States by 
Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70, 
which limits the period for which expendi­
ture can be refused financing by the 
EAGGF. 
A letter from the Commission, which con­
tains no reference to the regulation nor any 
evaluation of the expenses which might be 
refused financing and provides for a period 
of six weeks for a reply, does not meet the 
conditions set out in Article 8(1) of Regu­
lation No 1663/95. By those three irregu­
larities the Commission has infringed, in a 
significant way, the rules laid down in the 
said Article 8(1) and prejudiced the pro­
cedural guarantee accorded to Member 
States by the fifth subparagraph of 
Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70. 
Such a letter cannot therefore constitute a 
communication for the purposes of the said 
Article 8 and therefore the reference point 
for the period of 24 months referred to in 
Regulation No 729/70. 
(see paras 23-24, 26-27) 
I - 5374