Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Power of Commission to review regularity of expenditure - Where reasonable doubt arises - Burden of proof on the Member State

2. Agriculture - EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules - Irregularities treated differently depending on the extent of the shortcomings and the degree of risk to the Fund - Disputed by the Member State concerned - Burden of proof

3. Acts of the institutions - Regulations - Regulations prescribing specific measures of supervision - No discretionary power for the Member States - Non-implementation - Justification - Greater effectiveness of another system of supervision - Not acceptable

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

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))

5. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Financing by the EAGGF - Decision relating to the clearance of accounts - Decision subject to reservations - Whether permissible - Conditions

(Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(b))

Summary

1. Although, in the context of the clearance of EAGGF accounts, it is for the Commission to prove an infringement of the rules of the common organisation of agricultural markets, it is not obliged to demonstrate exhaustively the insufficiency of the checks carried out by national administrations or the irregularity of the figures transmitted by them, but must present evidence of a serious and reasonable doubt with regard to those checks or those figures. It is therefore for the Member State to demonstrate, if appropriate, that the Commission erred as to the action called for, on the financial level, as a result of that breach.

( see paras 34, 42, 64, 90 )

2. Where, as part of its task of clearing the EAGGF accounts, instead of disallowing all the expenditure affected by an infringement of the rules of the common organisation of the agricultural markets, the Commission has endeavoured to establish rules for treating irregularities differently, depending on the extent of the shortcomings in the checks and the degree of risk to the EAGGF, it is for the Member State to show that those criteria are arbitrary and unfair.

( see para. 44 )

3. Where a regulation lays down specific measures of supervision, the Member States must apply them and it is unnecessary to examine the merits of their view that another system of supervision is more effective.

( see paras 87, 138 )

4. The extent of the duty to state the reasons on which a decision is based, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC), depends on the nature of the act in question and on the context in which it was adopted. In the particular context of the preparation of decisions relating the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF, the statement of reasons for a decision refusing to charge to it part of the declared expenditure must be regarded as sufficient if the Member State to which the decision was addressed was closely involved in the process by which it came about and was aware of the reasons for which the Commission took the view that it should not charge the sum in dispute to the EAGGF.

( see paras 125-126 )

5. A clearance-of-accounts decision in respect of expenditure funded by the EAGGF which is subject to a negative reservation is not definitive, since the Commission must re-examine it in the light of the conclusions of the Conciliation Body. Where the conciliation procedure is not yet completed or where it has not been possible to implement the conclusions to be drawn from that procedure, the Commission is entitled to draw up the accounts on the basis of the information obtained during the clearance procedure, reserving to itself the possibility of correcting that decision in a subsequent clearance.

( see paras 163-164 )