Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:388
Date: 2013-06-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 13 June 2013 1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aid and premiums — Obligation for Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections — Scope (Council Regulation No 4045/89, Art. 2) 2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aid and premiums — Obligation for Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections — Period under scrutiny — Meaning — Possibility for a Member State to extend the period under scrutiny and adjust the temporal parameters — Included — Irregularity of procedure — None (Council Regulation No 4045/89, Art. 2(4) second para. and Art. 4) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 16-20) 2. The second subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Regulation No 4045/89 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State makes use of the option of extending the period under scrutiny, that period need not necessarily end during the preceding scrutiny period; rather, it may also end after that period has elapsed. That provision must nonetheless also be interpreted as not conferring upon operators a right which would enable them to oppose inspections other or broader than those envisaged under that provision. It follows that the fact that an inspection relates only to a period ending before the preceding scrutiny period begins cannot, of itself, make that inspection unlawful with regard to the operators scrutinised. Accordingly, Article 2(4) of Regulation No 4045/89 cannot be construed as conferring upon the operators concerned a right enabling them to oppose checks other or broader than those envisaged by that provision. Moreover, in so far as it might have the effect of preventing the recovery of aid which has been unlawfully collected or used, such a right would imperil the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. In any event, the checks required under Regulation No 4045/89 concern operators who voluntarily signed up for the support scheme established by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF and who, in order to receive aid, accepted the performance of inspections to verify that the European Union’s resources had been used properly. Those operators cannot validly call into question the lawfulness of such scrutiny simply because it was not in conformity with the organisational rules concerning the relations between the Member States and the Commission. The obligation for the recipient of aid granted under the support scheme established by the EAGGF to submit, during an inspection relating to specific periods, the requisite documents in order to establish the validity and the lawfulness of the subsidies which have been paid — where, legally, the period for which those documents are to be kept, set at a minimum of three years by Article 4 of Regulation No 4045/89, has not yet elapsed — cannot therefore be regarded as undermining legal certainty. (see paras 29, 30, 32, 33, operative part)