Case C-332/01

Hellenic Republic

v

Commission of the European Communities

(EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – 1996 to 1999 – Decision 2001/557/EC – Cotton, olive oil, dried grapes, sheepmeat and goatmeat)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Financing by the EAGGF – Principles – Conformity of expenditure with the Community rules – Obligation to supervise incumbent on the Member States

2. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation laying down specific measures of supervision – No discretionary power for the Member States – Non-implementation – Justification – Greater effectiveness of another system of supervision – Not permissible

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Financing by the EAGGF – Procedure for the clearance of the accounts – Purpose – Financial correction not constituting a sanction

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Duty – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF

5. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated system of management and supervision relating to certain aid schemes – Representativeness of the samples inspected – Influence of the choice of geographic basis

(Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 6(1), (3) and (4))

6. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Financing by the EAGGF – Granting of premiums for producers of sheepmeat and goatmeat – Identification of animals moved prior to being placed in agistment – Concept of ‘placing in agistment’ – Scope

(Commission Regulation No 2700/93, Art. 1(3), subpara. (2))

1. As regards Community financing of certain expenditure by the Member States for the purpose of the EAGGF, it is for the authorities of the Member States to implement a reliable and operational supervisory system organised in such as way as to prevent shortcomings. In that respect, the argument that the failure to carry out inspections was due to a temporary lack of staff cannot be taken into account.

(see para. 50)

2. Where a regulation lays down specific measures of supervision, the Member States must apply them and it is unnecessary to examine the merits of the view that another system of supervision is more effective, even if alternative inspections have already been organised.

(see para. 62)

3. An action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC and the procedure for the clearance of the EAGGF accounts pursue different aims and are governed by different rules. In the latter procedure, the Commission is under an obligation to carry out a financial correction if the expenditure in respect of which financing has been requested has not been carried out in accordance with Community rules. Such a financial correction is designed to avoid the EAGGF’s being burdened with amounts that have not served to finance an objective pursued by the Community legislation in question and therefore does not constitute a penalty.

(see para. 63)

4. In the particular context of the preparation of decisions relating to the clearance of the EAGGF’s accounts, the statement of reasons for a decision must be regarded as sufficient if the Member State to which the decision was addressed was sufficiently involved in the process by which the decision came about and was aware of the reasons for which the Commission took the view that it must not charge the sum in dispute to the EAGGF.

(see para. 67)

5. Article 6(3) of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes provides that, as regards the geographic basis of the sample, on-the-spot checks are to cover at least a significant percentage of applications and that that significant percentage is to represent a certain percentage of ‘livestock’ aid applications. That provision does not however state whether the minimum percentage is to be calculated in respect of an administrative district or of the country as a whole.

In that respect, the representativeness of the samples is best ensured if these are determined at the level of administrative districts rather than nationally. It would be contrary to the objective of effective checks if certain administrative districts producing a significant quantity of the products in question could escape in whole or in part from the checks provided that the national average of the sample exceeded the prescribed percentage.

(see paras 109, 111)

6. The concept of ‘placing in agistment’ for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Regulation No 2700/93 on detailed rules for the application of the premium in favour of sheepmeat and goatmeat producers, the purpose of which is to ensure that the animals moved have been identified before they are kept together with other animals, must be interpreted as applying to cases in which animals are kept together with others on the basis of the farming in common of flocks and herds belonging to different owners.

The essential characteristic of placing in agistment is that animals of different origins are kept together and that it becomes impossible in practice to distinguish between them if they have not been marked beforehand.

(see para. 142)