Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:610
Date: 2000-11-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF);Flax and hemp
Concepts: Flax and hemp
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary Report accompanying the Decision. In the first of those documents, 100 hectares is said to constitute 'the maximum hectarage admitted by the clearance of accounts services for an industrial trial; in the second, by contrast, that area is stated to be the maximum needed in order to carry out the tests referred to in Directive 72/180, that is to say, scientific tests. In the rejoinder, on the other hand, the notion of industrial trials no longer features in the Commission's arguments, and 100 hectares, instead of being the maximum area allowed for those purposes, is stated to represent merely an unusually generous concession on the part of the defendant. 48. However, the volatility of the approach adopted by the Community institution does not stop there. As the United Kingdom Government points out, the Commission puts forward, in its correspondence and in its defence, as many as five different criteria to determine the area to be financed at the expense of the EAGGF. 49. Thus, in paragraph 16 of the defence, the defendant states that the maximum area eligible for aid is the two hectares referred to in Directive 72/180/EEC; on the other hand, it maintains in paragraph 14 of the same pleading that that area of two hectares is merely a minimum requirement and that it is therefore permissible to grant aid for more extensive sowings. Nor should one overlook the abovementioned criteria set out in (a) the Summary Report accompanying the Decision and (b) the Formal Notice of 18 July 1997. Lastly, the 1996 inspection report stated that any aid that could legally be granted would have to be restricted to areas that could be identified beyond doubt as experimental. 50. It follows from the foregoing that the criterion referred to in the Formal Notice of 18 July 1997 merely constitutes one of several different criteria put forward by the Commission. At the hearing, the Commission sought to attach particular significance to the fact that the United Kingdom had not produced any evidence showing that the crop had been processed. However, that justification contradicts the other arguments put forward by the Community institution and is inconsistent, in particular, with its willingness to allow aid for a limited area corresponding to 100 hectares of cultivated flax. If, as the Commission claims, that lack of evidence of processing constituted the decisive reason for the refusal, then it necessarily follows that, hadthe United Kingdom produced evidence showing that the crop had been processed and that the trials had been carried out, the aid would have been approved in its entirety. This would in turn have been inconsistent with the wording of the Decision, which limits to 100 hectares the area in respect of which any aid may be allowed. Lastly, as is pointed out above, the allegation that the Commission granted a concession by approving the aid for that area, quite apart from having been raised at a late stage, is not supported by any of the statements contained in the documents. 51. In those circumstances, the Commission cannot be said to have fulfilled its obligation to provide a proper statement of reasons for its decision to reduce the aid to be financed by the EAGGF to a sum corresponding to 100 hectares. 52. The second plea must therefore also be upheld. Costs 53. On the basis that the grounds put forward by the United Kingdom should be upheld, it is appropriate to order the Commission, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs of the proceedings. VII. Conclusion 54. In accordance with the foregoing, I propose that the Court should: (1) Annul Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) inasmuch as it disallows the disbursement from that fund of the sum of GBP 869 283 relating to financial assistance paid in advance by the United Kingdom pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp. (2) Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. 1: Original language: Spanish. 2: - OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37. 3: - OJ 1989 L 121, p. 4. 4: - Of whom it is said that his riches were as plentiful as stones, that he possessed forty thousand horses, seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and that he caused thirty oxen to be sacrificed each day. 5: - Holy Bible, 1 Kings, chapter 3, verses 16 to 28 (see the Spanish version taken direct from the original languages, ed. E. Nácar and A. Colunga, Madrid, 1968). See also Carbonnier, J.: Flexible droit, Paris, 1992, p. 361 et seq. 6: - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp (OJ, English Special Edition, 1970(II), p. 411). 7: - And resulting from the successive amendments made, in so far as concerns the present case, by Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 814/76 of 6 April 1976 (OJ 1976 L 94, p. 4), 2057/92 of 30 June 1992 (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 16) and 1557/93 of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 154, p. 26). 8: - Council Regulation (EEC) No 619/71 of 22 March 1971 laying down general rules for granting aid for flax and hemp (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 169). 9: - Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp (OJ 1989 L 121, p. 4). 10: - Commission Regulation (EEC) No 174/81 of 22 January 1981 amending Regulation (EEC) No 771/74 laying down detailed rules for granting aid for flax and hemp (OJ 1981 L 20, p. 13). 11: - Commission Regulation (EC) No 624/97 of 8 April 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp (OJ 1997 L 95, p. 8). 12: - Council Directive 70/457/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ, English Special Edition, 1966-1972, p. 36). 13: - Commission Directive 72/180/EEC of 14 April 1972 determining the characteristics and minimum conditions for examining agricultural varieties (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 404). 14: - Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994 setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of EAGGF accounts (OJ 1994 L 182, p. 45). 15: - Which does not have binding force (Article 1(2)(a) of Decision 94/442). 16: - Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bedrijfsvereniging Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299; Case C-23/93 TV10 v Comissariaat voor de Media [1994] ECR I-4795; Case 229/83 Leclerc and Others v 'Au Blé Vert [1985] ECR 1; Case 39/86 Lair v Universität Hannover [1988] ECR 3161; and Case C-206/94 Brennet v Paletta [1996] ECR I-2357. 17: - Case 125/76 Cremer v BALM [1977] ECR 1593; Case 250/80 Töpfer [1981] ECR 2465; and Case C-8/92 General Milk Products v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1993] ECR I-779. 18: - See, mutatis mutandis, the judgment in General Milk Products v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, cited above. 19: - Case C-281/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-347. 20: - Case C-22/89 Netherlands v Commission [1990] ECR I-4799; Case C-27/94 Netherlands v Commission [1998] ECR I-5581; and Case C-28/94 Netherlands v Commission [1999] ECR I-1973.