Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated system of management and supervision relating to certain aid schemes – Regulation No 3887/92 – Effective verification of compliance with the terms under which ‘livestock’ aid is granted – Weighting or compensating of those checks against those carried out in respect of other systems of aid – Not permissible

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

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Refusal to accept expenses arising from irregularities in the application of the Community legislation – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Apportionment between the Commission and the Member State

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

(Art. 253 EC)

Summary

1. The provisions of Article 6(1), (3) and (4) of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes are all intended to ensure effective compliance with the conditions for the grant of aid, in particular ‘livestock’ aid. It would therefore be contrary both to the intended objective of efficiency of the checks carried out and to that of ensuring true representativeness of the samples checked for it to be possible that certain categories of aid should partly or wholly escape the checks provided for by those provisions on the pretext that the minimum level of checks may be reached by compensating or weighting with more numerous checks carried out in other sectors or in respect of other categories of aid.

(see para. 54)

2. Where the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF on the ground that it was incurred as a result of a breach of Community rules for which a Member State can be held responsible, the Commission is not required to demonstrate exhaustively that the checks carried out by the Member States are inadequate or that the figures supplied by them are incorrect, but to provide evidence of the serious and reasonable doubt it entertains concerning the checks carried out by the national authorities or concerning the correct application of the Community law in force. The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission is that it is the State which is best placed to collect and check the data required for the clearance of EAGGF accounts, and which is consequently required to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its checks are actually carried out and, if appropriate, that the Commission’s assertions are incorrect.

(see para. 68)

3. The extent of the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC depends on the nature of the measure concerned and the context in which it was adopted. In the particular context of the drafting of decisions relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenses financed by the EAGGF, the reasons given for a decision are to be considered sufficient when the relevant Member State was closely involved in the process under which that decision was drawn up and knew the reasons why the Commission considered that the disputed amount should not be charged to the EAGGF.

(see paras 83-84)