Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2003:45
Date: 2003-01-23
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Power of Commission to review 
validity of expenditure — Where reasonable doubt arises — Burden of proof on the 
Member State 
2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Procedure for 
the clearance of accounts — Conciliation procedure — Opinion expressed by the 
Commission following a bilateral meeting — No binding effect 
(Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8) 
I - 9293 
SUMMARY — CASE C-346/00 
1. Where the Commission refuses to 
charge certain expenditure to the 
EAGGF on the ground that it was 
incurred as a result of a breach of 
Community rules for which a Member 
State can be held responsible, the 
Commission is not required to demon­
strate exhaustively that the checks 
carried out by the Member States are 
inadequate, but to provide evidence of 
the serious and reasonable doubt it 
entertains concerning the checks car­
ried out by the national authorities. 
The reason for this mitigation of the 
burden of proof on the Commission is 
that it is the State which is best placed 
to collect and check the data required 
for the clearance of EAGGF accounts, 
and which is consequently required to 
adduce the most detailed and compre­
hensive evidence both that its checks 
are actually carried out and, if appro­
priate, that the Commission's asser­
tions are incorrect. 
(see para. 35) 
2. In the context of the conciliation pro­
cedure provided for in Article 8 of 
Regulation No 1663/95 laying 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, the mere fact that the con­
clusions which the Agriculture Direc­
torate-General reached after consul­
tation of other Commission services 
are inconsistent with the opinion which 
it expressed following the bilateral 
discussion and with the position of 
the Member State concerned does not 
m e a n t h a t the C o m m i s s i o n has 
infringed the second subparagraph of 
Article 8(1) by rendering meaningless 
the obligation to hold a bilateral dis­
cussion in accordance with that sub­
paragraph. The bilateral discussion is 
merely a preliminary stage in the 
Commission's decision-making process 
and any opinion which it expresses at 
the end of such a discussion does not 
bind it in the future. Before formally 
communicating its findings, the Agri­
culture Directorate-General may con­
sult other Commission services. Where 
the Agriculture Directorate-General 
alters an opinion which it has pre­
viously expressed, it must be pointed 
out that no agreement has been reached 
between the parties and the Member 
State concerned may still request initi­
ation of a conciliation procedure. What 
is important is that the bilateral dis­
cussion enabled both parties to debate 
all the issues in dispute and that all the 
issues discussed were t aken in to 
account by the Commission when it 
formally presented its findings. 
(see paras 69-70, 72) 
I - 9294