Case C-190/03: Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Portuguese Republic against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, Portugal, action for annulment (EU), aid system, closing of accounts, financial control, infringement of EU law

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/17

the European Parliament and of

declaration that, by failing to communicate measures trans-
posing into national law the provisions of Directive 1999/94/
EC of
the Council of
13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer
information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of
the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16) or,
at any rate, by not informing the Commission fully thereof, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
19 June 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of
the European Communities the national implementing measures
required by Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament
and of
the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2
emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), President of
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Jacobs,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 5 June 2003, in which it:

Judges; F.G.

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in
the environment by equipment
the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1)
of that directive;

for use outdoors,

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Portuguese Republic
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-190/03)

(2003/C 184/33)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 5 June 2003

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 9 May 2003 by the Portuguese Republic,
represented by L. Fernandes, acting as Agent, and C. Botelho
Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

in Case C-352/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Hellenic Republic (1)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose Directive 2000/14/EC — Noise emission in the
environment)

(2003/C 184/32)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

— annul the decision of the Director-General of the Directo-
rate General for Agriculture of the European Commission,
reference No AGR 05697, of 19 February 2003, with
regard to ‘Clearance of
the EAGGF Guarantee Section
accounts pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 (1)
and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC)
No 1258/1999 (2) — Inquiry AP/2000/10 into premia for
beef, pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 3508/92 (3) (EEC)
No 3887/92 (4) and (EEC) No 3886/92 (5) — Conciliation
Procedure No 02/PT/202’;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

v Hellenic Republic

In Case C-352/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Konstantinidis)
(Agent:
N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt or by failing to notify to the Commission the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the
environment by equipment for use outdoors (OJ 2000 L 162,
its obligations
p. 1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Lack of competence of the Commission inasmuch as it
infringed Article 4 of its Rules of Procedure: The Director-
General of the Directorate General for Agriculture does
not have powers
the
contested decision and he did not rely on any delegation
of powers enabling him so to do. Accordingly, he clearly
acted ultra vires.

to adopt a measure such as

C 184/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

— Error in law as a result of the misapplication of Article 6
(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92:
the Commission
relies on the failure to carry out the minimum number
of on-the-spot checks required by the regulation with
regard to the special premium for beef as the basis for
expenditure
applying the
incurred with regard to the special premium for male
bovine animals. The Portuguese Government claims that:

correction to the

flat-rate

‘animal’ aid schemes available under

— Portugal adopted an approach centring on holdings,
devising an integrated application common to the
the
various
EAGGF Guarantee section,
in the context of which
the checks are carried out. In the year in question,
the minimum percentage of lawful applications were
checked on the spot during the retention period.
Indeed, 50 % of
the minimum number of checks
on the animals to be carried out during the retention
period must be calculated having regard to all the
‘animal’ aid applications submitted in each year as
than by
the integrated application rather
part of
reference to each aid scheme, as the Commission
suggests.

the material

— Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, in its
wording in force at
time, did not
distinguish between the various aid schemes so far
as concerned the obligation to check 5 % of
the
‘animal’ aid applications during the retention period,
so that, contrary to the Commission's contention,
the Portuguese authorities acted in conformity with
the provision in issue.

— by applying in this case Article 6(5) of Regulation
No 3887/92 as
amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2801/99 (6), rather than the version in force at
the material time, the Commission is applying retro-
spectively a new provision, which is contrary to the
general principles of
law common to the Member
States.

— Error of assessment of

the facts with regard to the
expenditure declared by the Portuguese authorities for
1999 concerning the premium for the maintenance of
the suckler cow herd:

— The alleged irregularities regarding the identification
the animals, which the Commission claims to
of
have detected in checks carried out in holdings in

the Alentejo region in September 2000, are of no
relevance to the application of the flat-rate correc-
tions applied to expenditure in respect of the 1999
the Portuguese
financial year.
In the alternative,
the irregularities
Government
takes the view that
since
alleged by the Commission are irrelevant,
Portugal has complied and continues to comply with
the rules relating to the identification of bovine
animals.

— The Commission further alleges, as the basis for
applying the financial correction, that some animals
bore producer markings bearing an identification
number which was not that accorded by the compe-
tent authorities, and considers
the practice
increases the risk that a premium might be paid
the same animal.
more than once in respect of
Again in that respect the Commission erred in its
assessment of
the relevant facts by failing to take
account of
the actual circumstances in which the
said practice occurred.

that

— Breach of the obligation to provide reasons enshrined in
Article 253 of the EC Treaty: the Commission's decision
does not indicate which legislation was infringed by the
conduct of the Portuguese authorities, nor does it show
how the conduct in question undermines the reliability of
the checks but merely states that it does. The decision
therefore does not fulfil the obligation to provide reasons.
That requirement is stricter where at issue is the adoption
of measures which impose sanctions on or entail adverse
consequences, in particular in financial terms, for those to
whom it is addressed, as in the present case.
In those
the obligation to provide
circumstances,
reasons is essential
the rights of
defence of the person or body affected by the adverse
consequences flowing from the measure.

fulfilment of

to protect

in order

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special
Edition, 1970(I), p. 218).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,

financing of
p. 103).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992
establishing an integrated administration and control system for
certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).

(4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administra-
tion and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ
1992 L 391, p. 36).

(5) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992
laying down detailed rules for the application of
the premium
schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on
the common organization of
in beef and repealing
Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992
L 391, p. 20).

the market

(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2801/1999 of 21 December 1999
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules
for applying the integrated administration and control system for
certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1999 L 340, p. 29).