Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:252
Date: 2001-05-08
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Monetary measures in the field of agriculture
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Community law — Interpretation — Effectiveness — Interpretation of a provision, 
as far as possible, in such a way as not to detract from its validity 
2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Agrimonetary system for the euro — 
Transitional measures for the introduction of the euro in the common agricultural 
policy — Compensatory aid 
(Commission Regulation No 2813/98, Art. 6) 
I - 6883 
SUMMARY — CASE C-403/99 
3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Account 
taken of context and whole body of legal rules 
(Art. 253 EC) 
1. Where a provision of Community law 
is open to several interpretations, pre­
ference must be given to that interpre­
tation which ensures that the provision 
retains its effectiveness. 
According to a general principle of 
interpretation, a provision must be 
interpreted, as far as possible, in such 
a way as not to detract from its 
validity. 
(see paras 28, 37) 
2. Article 6 of Regulation No 2813/98 
laying down detailed rules for applying 
the transitional measures for the intro­
duction of the euro to the common 
agricultural policy, according to which 
the maximum amount of the compen­
satory aid to farmers resulting from the 
conversion rates for the euro into 
national currency units or the applic­
able conversion rates resulting from a 
reduction in the agricultural conversion 
rate frozen until 1 January 1999 was 
increased by the inverse of the relation 
between, first, the rate irrevocably 
fixed by the Council or the exchange 
rate at the date of the operative event 
and, second, the frozen agricultural 
conversion rate, constitutes an excep­
tional rule applicable only to direct aid 
for which the operative event occurred 
on 1 January 1999. 
(see paras 30-31) 
3. The question whether the obligation to 
provide a statement of reasons has been 
satisfied must be assessed with refer­
ence not only to the wording of the 
contested measure but also to its con­
text and the whole body of legal rules 
governing the matter in question. 
(see para. 41) 
I - 6884