Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2002 in Case C-417/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt): Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG v Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules — Aid linked to set-aside of land — Declaration of area of set-aside — Failure to give notice, after submission of the aid application, of a decrease of the area of set-aside — Penalties)
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, aid system, aid to agriculture, interpretation of the law

C 19/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 12 December 2002

in Case C-395/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Trento): Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA
v Ministero delle Finanze (1)

(Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 20 — Export to non-
member
countries of products under duty-suspension
arrangements — Products having to be considered not to
have arrived at their destination by reason of the falsification
of the accompanying document — Place of the offence or
irregularity unknown — Determination of the Member State
in which excise duty is chargeable)

(Sixth Chamber)

of 28 November 2002

in Case C-417/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt):
Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG v Amt für Landwirtsch-
aft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, (1)

(Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
92 — Integrated administration and control system for
certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
Aid linked to set-aside of land — Declaration of area of set-
aside — Failure to give notice, after submission of the aid
application, of a decrease of the area of set-aside — Penalties)

(2003/C 19/06)

(2003/C 19/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-395/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy)
for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, on
the interpretation of Article 20(2) and (3) of Council Directive
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,
p. 1), the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 20(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products is invalid
in so far as the period prescribed therein of four months for evidence
to be provided of the correctness of the transaction or of the place
where the irregularity or offence was actually committed may be relied
on against a trader who has guaranteed the payment of the excise
duties but was not in a position to know, at the appropriate time,
that the duty-suspension arrangement had not been discharged.

In Case C-417/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG
and Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, on
the interpretation of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
rules for applying the integrated administration and control
system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391,
p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 229/
95 of 3 February 1995 (OJ 1995 L 27, p. 3) and 1648/95 of
6 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber,
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 28 November 2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
integrated administration and control system for certain Community
aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 229/
95 of 3 February 1995 and 1648/95 of 6 July 1995, must be
interpreted as meaning that the penalties prescribed by that provision
are not limited to cases in which the farmer has made erroneous or
false declarations at the time when the aid application was submitted
but that they also apply where the farmer has failed to notify the
competent authority of changes affecting the conditions governing
grant of the aid.

( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.

(1) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.