Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Decision on clearance of the accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

2. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Export refunds ° Conditions for grant ° Lodgment of the export declaration in respect of the goods before they leave the customs territory

(Council Directive 81/177, Arts 2, 3 and 5; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 3)

3. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Export refunds ° Application of the rate in force on the date of acceptance of the export declaration ° Choice of date of acceptance by the exporter ° Not permitted

(Council Directive 81/177, Arts 2, 3 and 5(1) and (3) and 6(1))

4. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Cereals ° Sugar ° Production refunds ° Establishment by the Member States of a control procedure ° Obligation to provide for the possibility of checks on the goods

(Commission Regulations Nos 1729/78, Art. 6(1) and 2169/86, Art. 8(2))

5. Acts of the institutions ° Regulations ° Regulation laying down specific measures of supervision ° No latitude granted to Member States ° Non-implementation ° Justification ° Another system of supervision more effective ° Not permissible

Summary

1. The extent of the obligation to state the reasons on which a measure is based, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty, depends on the nature of the measure concerned and the circumstances in which it was adopted.

A decision on clearance of the accounts in respect of the expenditure financed by the EAGGF, refusing to charge to the EAGGF part of the expenditure declared, does not require a detailed statement of the reasons on which it is based since the government concerned was closely involved in the process of drawing up of a decision and was therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considered that the amount at issue should not be charged to the EAGGF.

2. It follows from Article 3 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products and from Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Directive 81/177 on the harmonization of procedures for the export of Community goods, that, for the export refunds provided for by the various common organizations of the market to be available, first, an export declaration must be made in writing, so that inter alia it is possible to check that the information given by the exporter corresponds to the goods presented for export, and secondly, that declaration must be lodged before the goods have left the customs territory of the Community.

3. By virtue of Articles 2, 3, 5(1) and (3) and 6(1) of Directive 81/177, although the export declaration upon which the payment of export refunds is conditional may be lodged when, or even before, the goods are presented at the customs office, the declaration must nevertheless be accepted by the customs authorities immediately after it has been checked as regards form, content and conformity with the goods to be exported, with the result that traders are not entitled to choose the date of acceptance of the export declaration, on which the rate of the export refund which they may claim is dependent.

4. Although Article 8(2) of Regulation No 2169/86 laying down detailed rules for the control and payment of the production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 1729/78 laying down detailed rules of application in respect of the production refund for sugar used in the chemical industry do not require that, in the administrative procedure followed by the national authorities for the issue to traders of the certificates entitling them to the payment of production refunds for starch and sugar, physical checks on the goods be carried out all the time, that procedure must nevertheless be designed so as to enable such inspections to be carried out.

5. Where a regulation lays down specific measures of supervision, the Member States must apply them and cannot argue, to justify their failure to implement them, that another system of supervision would be more effective.