Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:186
Date: 2011-04-15
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Accession;External relations
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Czechia

Summary of the Judgment 1. Accession of new Member States to the Communities – Czech Republic – Immediate and full application of Community law – Exceptions – Condition – Express provision (Art. 292 EC; Act of Accession 2003, Art. 33(2)) 2. Accession of new Member States to the Communities – Czech Republic – Global budget commitments entered into under pre-accession financial instruments – Rules applicable as from accession (Act of Accession 2003, Art. 33(2); Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 73(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 81(1) and 83) 3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision taking place in a context known to the addressee (Art. 253 EC) 1. Derogations from the application ab initio and in toto of the provisions of Community law concerning pre-accession assistance under the PHARE programme referred to in Article 33(1) of the act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, are allowed, on the basis of Article 33(2) of the act, only in so far as they are expressly provided for by the provisions in question. Article 33(2) of the Act of Accession does not expressly provide for an exception to the provisions of Article 292 EC consisting of the continued application, after the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union, of the out-of-court methods for settling disputes provided for by the Framework Agreement between the Government of the Czech Republic and the European Commission concerning the participation of the Czech Republic in the European Community’s aid programme. Consequently, the out-of-court methods for settling disputes provided for by the 1996 Framework Agreement are no longer applicable as of the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. (see paras 100-102) 2. Article 33(2) of the act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, which is designed to ensure the continuation of expenditure provided for before accession to the European Union under global budget commitments which have not yet been fully implemented at the time of accession, derogates from certain provisions of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, relating to expenditure operations. On the other hand, it is not designed to derogate from the rules of the Financial Regulation relating to recovery. In other words, Article 33(2) of the Act of Accession does not expressly preclude the application of the Financial Regulation and of the Implementing Regulation in respect of recovery operations. Therefore the latter have been governed by the regulations in question since the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. In addition, offsetting provided for as a method of recovering amounts receivable by Article 73(1) of the Financial Regulation and by Article 81(1) and Article 83 of Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation is not expressly excluded by the provisions of Article 33(2) of the Act of Accession. Consequently, that recovery operation is applicable, in the conditions laid down by the regulations in question, to claims resulting from the pre-accession assistance under the PHARE programme referred to in Article 33(1) of the Act of Accession. Consequently, it is for the Commission to establish and recover, including by means of offsetting, any amount relating to the reimbursement of funds received by the Czech Republic within the framework of the PHARE programme, and to that effect the Commission is required to apply and comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation and of the Implementing Regulation. (see paras 118-122) 3. The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for an act adversely affecting a person, as provided for in Article 253 EC, is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the act is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested before the EU judicature and, second, to enable the latter to review the lawfulness of the decision. The obligation to state reasons therefore constitutes an essential principle of EU law which may be derogated from only for compelling reasons. The statement of reasons must therefore in principle be notified to the person concerned at the same time as the act adversely affecting him, since a failure to state the reasons cannot be remedied by the fact that the person concerned learns the reasons for the act during the proceedings before the EU judicature. The statement of reasons must, however, be appropriate to the measure at issue and to the context in which it was adopted. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the statement of reasons to specify all the relevant matters of fact and law, since the question whether the statement of reasons is sufficient must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. In particular, the reasons given for a measure adversely affecting a person are sufficient if it was adopted in circumstances known to that person which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him. The statement of reasons required for a decision to offset must be such as to allow precise identification of the claims to be offset, without there being any requirement for the initial reasons used in support of establishing each of these claims to be repeated in the decision to offset. (see paras 162-164)