It is clear from a combined reading of Articles 39 and 40 TFEU, recitals 65 and 77 of Regulation No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMC Regulation) and Article 164(3)(b) thereof, that the main objective pursued by the grant, where appropriate, of export refunds is to stabilise the internal market. In that connection, Article 162 of Regulation No 1234/2007 grants a wide margin of discretion to the Commission as to whether or not to introduce export refunds and, therefore, to withdraw any refunds introduced.

Finally, given that, under the same provisions of Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007, the Commission may fix export refunds on the basis of one or more of several elements laid down in that provision, it must be held that a regulation adopted on the basis of that provision is not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment if that assessment could validly be based on at least one of those elements.

As regards fixing export refunds, since no specific amount or any particular method of calculation are imposed by Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMC Regulation) there is nothing to prevent the examination by the Commission of the elements set out in that provision resulting in temporarily fixing the amount at zero. Furthermore, as Article 164(2) of that regulation allows the Commission either to maintain the refunds at the same level for more than three months or to adjust them in the intervening period, it cannot be held that that provision requires it to systematically convene meetings of the Management Committee every three months solely for the purpose of renewing the refunds previously fixed. Such an interpretation, which would require the Commission and the Management Committee to hold unnecessary meetings, would be incompatible with the principle of proper administration.

As far as concerns the procedure for the adoption by the Commission of implementing measures, the first time limit laid down by Article 3(3) of Regulation No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers is to enable an unhurried examination of a draft implementing act before a meeting, by the Management Committee members, and that the second must enable them to express their views on the draft. Furthermore, since Article 291(3) TFEU expressly provides for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers conferred on it by paragraph 2 of that article, it must be held that the first time-limit also aims to guarantee that the governments of the Member States are informed through their Management Committee members about the Commission’s proposals, so that those governments may, by means of internal and external consultations, define a position in order to protect the specific interests of each of them within the Management Committee. As is clear from Article 3(7) of Regulation No 182/2011, the members of the Management Committee are representatives of those governments which are responsible for deciding the appropriate level of their representation at the various stages of the procedure.

In those circumstances, it must be held that a practice consisting in the submission of the draft of an implementing act to the Management Committee only in the course of a meeting convened in order to the examine it is incompatible with both the wording and the objectives pursued by Article 3(3) of Regulation No 182/2011. By proceeding in that way, the Commission fails to comply with the first time limit of 14 days. Moreover, such a practice is contrary to the scheme of Regulation No 182/2011, Article 8 of which authorises the Commission to adopt, where necessary, regulations which are directly applicable without prior consultation of the Management Committee. Finally, that practice, which makes it impossible for the Management Committee members to express their views or suggest amendments before the relevant meeting, is contrary to Article 3(4), first subparagraph, of that regulation, according to which those members must be in a position to do so at any time before the adoption of that act.

It follows that, although the Commission’s consistent practice could fit within the previous legal framework for the adoption of that regulation, that is the framework defined by the comitology decisions, the amendments to primary law resulting from the adoption of the FEU Treaty and, subsequently, those of secondary legislation resulting from the adoption of Regulation No 182/2011, preclude its continuation.

(see paras 102-107, 113)