Case C-153/01: Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, Spain, action for annulment (EU), agricultural expenditure, budgetary control

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/5

has been submitted to the customs office and that invoice
— like the declaration of customs value — does not
reveal either expressly or by implication that in the
context of the transaction to be assessed interest was also
paid by the buyer to the seller?

crops which need little water. The legislation which was
enacted shortly afterwards in light of experience (Council
Regulation No 1422/97) (2) bears out the fact that neither
the objectives nor the spirit of the applicable Community
law were prejudiced.

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

Do the interest payments then form part of the customs
value of the goods?

(1) OJ L 154, 21.6.1980, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 134, 31.5.1980, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 25, 30.1.1985, p. 7.

Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-153/01)

(2001/C 186/09)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Mr Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2001 (1)
excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
EAGGF, in so far as that decision is the object of the
present action; and

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Arable crops: inadequate extraordinary set-aside for the 1995
harvest)

— There was no failure to fulfil obligations such as to allow
a financial adjustment to be made. The Spanish authorities
consider that they have not acted in breach of Community
law.

As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-
aside in the non-irrigated areas, they submit that the
applicable law should be interpreted purposively and in a
factual context, on the basis of a fact recognised by the
Commission:
in 1994
prompted farmers to have recourse to the production of

the exceptional drought

that

As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-
aside in relation to irrigated arable crops, they rely on
the factual circumstances (the drought and the Act of
Accession) acknowledged by Commission Regulation
No 1040/95 (3) and to an agreement which unfortunately
will be put to the test only if it is recognised by the
Commission.

— (In the alternative) The financial adjustment includes
items which should not be included and has been
calculated in a way that is contrary to the applicable rules.
Although items which the Commission alleges should be
present are included in the adjustment, the way it has
been calculated is incorrect.

(Arable crops: the checks carried out in the Autonomous
Community of Andalusia in respect of the 1996 and 1997
harvests were inadequate as to quality and quantity)

— The checks carried out considerably exceed the minimum
required by the rules. The delays alleged to have occurred
as regards the standard-method checks cannot have any
repercussions since the checks carried out by tele-
detection, in themselves, exceed the compulsory mini-
mum. Furthermore, it is not surprising that the additional
checks using the standard methods were carried out in
part after 31 August, since they are additional checks
taking place later than the initial checks. The Commission
failed to respond on both occasions when it was asked
whether it was incorrect to carry out additional checks
after 31 August. It is inconsistent to increase the amount
of
in proportion to the number of
additional checks, since that amounts to inflicting heavier
penalties if more checks are carried out.

the adjustment

The Spanish authorities consider that the adjustment
relating to the tele-detection and standard-method checks
in Andalusia for the 1997 harvest is void for two further
reasons:

1.

2.

The information used by the Commission to assess
the 1997 harvest is incorrect since it concerns the
1996 harvest. There is, therefore, a manifest error of
fact.

The adjustment relating to the 1997 harvest is
indefensible because there has been a breach of the
principle of the right to a fair hearing.

Even if the Court were to hold that it was appropriate to
make a financial adjustment, the amount fixed by the
Commission cannot be justified.

C 186/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

(Aid for the production of olive oil)

— Spain refers to the position adopted in Cases C-349/97 (4)

and C-130/99 (5).

— In addition, the failings which the Commission detects in
the system do not in any way prejudice the Community
budget, given that the total quantity of olive oil produced
in Spain in the marketing years in question is equal to, or
greater than, that in respect of which aid has been
received.

— (In the alternative) The Commission must reduce the
the financial adjustment, since it has

percentage of
acknowledged that the situation has improved.

(Aid for the consumption of olive oil)

— Spain refers to the position adopted in Case C-374/99.

in respect of

— (In the alternative) Prior to the letter dated 17 August
1998, the Spanish authorities were not informed in
writing that,
the 1996 financial year,
pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (6),
the intention was to exclude a part of the expenditure
from financing in accordance with the applicable pro-
visions, as provided for in Article 5(2)(c) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 as amended (7).

(Additional levy on milk)

— The action is directed against an adjustment of
ESP 2 426 259 870 representing default interest, made
on the basis that Spain did not put into effect before
1 September 1996 the additional
levy on milk for
the period 1995/1996 in relation to the purchasers
concerned. The Commission requires the Member State
concerned to pay default interest in respect of amounts
not collected from the milk purchasers responsible for the
excess produced. Spain contends that its only obligation is
to exercise due diligence in collecting the additional
levy and to pay the amounts actually received to the
Commission. Payment of the amounts still due from the
producers has been required by the Spanish authorities
from the persons concerned but the latter have brought
legal proceedings and the national courts have stayed
execution (requiring by way of security payment of the
principal amount plus interest until the date of payment).
Therefore, the national authorities have not been negli-
gent since they cannot prevent the debtors from having
recourse to the judicial remedies available at national
level in respect of administrative demands for payment.
Furthermore, the delay in the judicial proceedings does
not prejudice the Commission, since Spanish legislation
provides in such cases that suspension of the administrat-
ive decision requiring payment is to be granted only
where a bank guarantee or equivalent security is provided,
covering the principal amount together with interest up
to the date of the final decision.

— (In the alternative) The Commission is not entitled to
demand from the Member State concerned default interest
on amounts which the State has already paid to the

EAGGF (wrongfully, by way of reductions in the monthly
advances) but which have still not been collected from
the milk purchasers responsible for the excess produced.

(1) 2001/137/EC – OJ L 50 of 21.2.2001, p. 9.
(2) OJ L 196 of 24.7.1997, p. 18.
(3) OJ L 106 of 11.5.1995, p. 4.
(4) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997, p. 1.
(5) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999, p. 23.
(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 laying down detailed
rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70
regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the
EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).

(7) OJ, English Special Edition, 1970(I), p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Circuit Court,
County of Cork (Ireland), by judgment of that court of
9 March 2001, in the case of Catherine Withers against
Samantha Delaney

(Case C-158/01)

(2001/C 186/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Circuit Court,
Cork (Ireland), of 9 March 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 17 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Catherine Withers against Samantha Delaney, on
the following questions:

I. Whether on the true interpretation of the provisions of
Directives of 24th April 1972 (72/166/EEC) (1) and of
30th December 1983 (84/5/EEC) (2), Ireland was entitled
on the 23rd of July 1995 to maintain legislation (Sec-
tion 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Road Traffic
(Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1962) which did not
make compulsory insurance mandatory for passengers
injured in a ‘part of a vehicle, other than a large public
service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle is designed
and constructed with seating accommodation for passen-
gers’?

II.

If the answer to Question I is that Ireland was not so
entitled and was in breach of its obligations in this regard,
is Ireland liable in damages to the plaintiff if the plaintiff
fails to get compensation from the MIBI, that is the body
authorised by Ireland under Article 1, para 4 of Council
Directive 84/5/EEC,
the
in respect of
deceased?

the death of

III.

If the answer to Question I is that Ireland was in breach
of its obligations, can the Cork Circuit Court proceed
directly to an award of Frankovich damages against the
State without applying the Directive against the defaulting