Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:478
Date: 2001-09-20
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: Finland

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Communication to the Member 
States of the results of the inspections of the control services — Applicable 
provisions — Conditions as to form — Probative function of writing — Acceptabil­
ity of any procedure involving written documentation 
(Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. S(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, 
Art. 8(1), first subpara.) 
I - 1007 
SUMMARY — CASE C-170/00 
2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Communication to the Member 
States of the results of the inspections of the control services — Conditions as to 
content — Indication of period for reply without express reference to Article 8 of 
Regulation No 1663/95 — No breach of an essential formal requirement — Con­
ditions 
(Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, 
Art. 8(1), first subpara.) 
1. It is clear from the wording of 
Article 5(2)(c) of Regula t ion 
No 729/70 and Article 8 of Regulation 
No 1663/95 that those provisions both 
refer to the communication of the 
results of the inspections of the EAGGF 
control services in the Member States. 
Even if the fifth subparagraph of 
Article 5(2)(c) of Regula t ion 
No 729/70 uses the terms 'results of 
checks' and the first subparagraph of 
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 
the terms 'findings as a result of an 
enquiry', it is none the less clear that 
they mean the same stage of the 
procedure for clearance of accounts of 
the EAGGF Guarantee Section, that is 
to say, the on-the-spot inspections in 
Member States by the Commission's 
services. 
As regards the formal requirements 
relating to the communication of the 
results of inspections in the Member 
States, Article 8(1) of Regulation 
No 1663/95 makes a distinction 
between the communication of 'find­
ings', referred to in the first subpara­
graph, and the 'formal' communication 
of 'conclusions', referred to in the 
second subparagraph, which happens 
at a later stage. It follows that the first 
communication does not have to meet 
such strict formal conditions as the 
second. The requirement that the com­
munication be in writing, at that stage 
in the procedure, has merely a pro­
bative function in relations between the 
Commission and the Member State 
concerned. That probative function is 
fulfilled by any procedure involving 
written documentation. Findings can 
therefore be communicated by a 
written message sent by telex or fax. 
(see paras 27-29) 
2. In the procedure for the clearance of 
EAGGF accounts, the document by 
which the Commission communicates 
to the Member State the results of 
on-the-spot checks made and the cor­
rective measures to be taken is the basis 
for the calculation of the period of 24 
months mentioned in the fifth subpara­
graph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation 
No 729/70. Express reference to that 
period is not required by the applicable 
legislation. That document also indi­
cates the period, of two months, in 
I - 1008 
FINLAND v COMMISSION 
which a reply is to be made, as 
provided for in Article 8 of Regulation 
No 1663/95. As regards the question of 
an express reference to that provision, 
the Commission is bound, in its 
relations with the Member States, to 
respect the conditions it has imposed 
on itself by implementing regulations. 
However, the Member States cannot, 
in their relations with the Commission, 
adopt purely formalist positions when 
it is clear from the circumstances that 
their rights were fully protected. That 
is the case where a Member State was 
fully informed about the Commission's 
reservations and the corrections which 
would probably be made to the pre¬ 
miums in question, so that the docu­
ment fulfilled the warning function 
conferred on a written communication 
by Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation 
No 729/70 and the first subparagraph 
of Article 8(1) of Regulation 
No 1663/95. The mere omission, in 
the document communicating the 
results of inspections, of a reference to 
Regulation No 1663/95 does not 
appear to be a breach of an essential 
formal requirement. 
(see paras 32-34) 
I - 1009