29. 4. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 113/55 
OPINION No 2/91 OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS 
on a proposal for a Council (EEC) Decision concerning the refund to Portugal of revenue 
from the 'accession' compensatory amounts applied to deliveries of common wheat from the 
other Member States 
(91/C 113/02) 
THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF THE EUROPEAN COM­
MUNITIES, 
having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and especially Article 209 thereof, 
having regard to the Act of Accession of Portugal, and 
especially Article 372 thereof, 
having regard to Council Decision No 88/376/EEC/ 
Euratom of 24 June 1988 concerning the system of 
Community own resources, and especially Article 2 
thereof, 
having regard to the Commission proposal dated 26 
November 1990 (*), 
having regard to the Council's request for an opinion dated 
21 December 1990, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION: 
Statement 
1. By virtue of Article 372, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Act 
of Accession, revenue from sums established at the 
moment of import of agricultural produce into 
Portugal (2) are to be considered own resources with 
effect from 1 January 1991 in the case of those products 
that are subject to a staged transitional period (3). 
These sums include not only agricultural levies but also 
'accession compensatory amounts' (ACMs). 
2. Article 372, paragraph 3, of the Act of Accession allows 
the refund to Portugal, by decision of the Council, of 
revenue from ACMs applied to imports of cereals from 
the other Member States. 
3. The measure proposed by the Commission has the 
objective of implementing this refund procedure in 
respect of quantities of common wheat up to a 
maximum of 400 000 tonnes. 
4. The budgetary technique selected by the Commission 
consists of a direct deduction of the ACMs from the 
(!) Doc. COM(90) 599 Final. 
(2) By virtue of Articles 233 to 345 and Articles 210, paragraph 3, 
and 213 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Portugal. 
(3) By virtue of Articles 309 to 341 of the Act of Accession of the 
Republic of Portugal. amount of own resources that are to be credited to the 
Commission's account (4). 
Remarks concerning charging to the budget 
5. Direct deduction is not compatible with the provisions 
of Article 372, paragraph 3, of the Act of Accession, 
which uses the word 'refund'. This expression implies 
that the ACMs must be made available to the 
Community before they can be 'refunded'. That, 
however, does not mean that the refund cannot be 
concomitant with the crediting to the Commission's 
account. The mode of procedure chosen for charging 
these sums, based as it is on a distinction between gross 
revenue on the one hand, and sums to be refunded on 
the other, must ensure budgetary transparency whilst 
at the same time facilitating control of the quantities 
concerned and of the sums due. 
6. Doubtless the procedure of direct deduction is 
concomitant, but it does not distinguish between the 
two operations and therefore does not guarantee an 
adequate degree of transparency. 
7. Direct charging should be chosen as the refund method, 
either to an expenditure heading or to a revenue 
heading by a process akin to the one used for the 
collection costs of traditional own resources. 
8. Whereas, in line with its constant concern to ensure 
that the principle of the universality of the budget is 
adhered to, the Court prefers these refunds to be 
charged to expenditure (the budget includes, moreover, 
a heading 'refunds to Portugal' in respect of VAT 
resources), it would not consider charging them to a 
negative revenue heading to be incompatible with the 
principle of universality. In contrast to the practice of 
deducting to cover refunds of collection costs (5), the 
charging of which it criticized in its Annual Report on 
the financial year 1989 (paragraph 1.5), in this case the 
operation is not one that can be shown by analysis to be 
in fact a form of reimbursement of expenses. It is rather 
an own resource which the Community is forgoing. 
(4) Mentioned in Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC, Eu-
ratom)No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 (OJ No L 155, 7. 6. 1989). 
(5) In accordance with Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC, 
Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 (OJ No L 155, 
7. 6. 1989). 
No C 113/56 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 4. 91 
9. Consequently, the Court recommends that these funds 
should be charged to revenue, provided that they are 
charged to a distinct budgetary heading. 
Remarks concerning the import ceiling and control 
10. The Court suggests that the text of Article 1 of the 
Decision should specify that the quantity in question is 
400 000 tonnes and that it should use the term 'import' 
rather than 'delivery'. Whereas the financial memo­
randum alludes to a ceiling of 400 000 tonnes a year, 
This opinion was adopted by the Court of Audi the text of Article 1, by referring to the period 'from 1 
January 1991 to 31 December 1992', is ambiguous as to 
the period covered by the maximum limit. Moreover, 
both the text of Article 372 and the customs 
terminology argue in favour of the use of the word 
'import' rather than 'delivery'. 
11. The control mentioned in Article 3 of the proposal for a 
Decision concerns only the question of observance of 
the 400 000 tonne limit. It should also be provided for 
as regards the establishment of the actual amount of 
the funds. 
at a meeting on 21 February 1991. 
For the Court of Auditors 
Aldo ANGIOI 
President