CELEX: C2003/146/59
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Removal from the register of Case C-86/02

21.6.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/35
—       Reliability of the on-the-spot checks, in particular                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
        adequate measurement of agricultural land. In its third             Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
        plea in law, Germany rebuts the Commission’s complaint              case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A.
        that Brandenburg did not adequately measure land in the                                   and COSPALAT F.V.G.
        course of on-the-spot checks, which constitutes a breach
        of Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 ( 3). That                                     (Case C-185/03)
        complaint is based, it submits, on factually and legally
        incorrect premisses.                                                                          (2003/C 146/57)
—       Adequate expansion of the sample coverage of on-the-
        spot checks. In its fourth plea in law, Germany deals with          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        the complaint that Brandenburg did not adequately                   European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo
        expand the required sample coverage of the on-the-spot              (Tolmezzo District Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the
        checks within the holdings visited.                                 Court Registry on 5 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A. and
                                                                            COSPALAT F.V.G. on the following question:
—       The representative yields for non-food crops on set-aside
        land were assessed at a sufficiently high level. In its fifth       Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
        plea in law, Germany demonstrates that the Commission’s
                                                                            1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 ( 2) of
        complaint — that the representative yields of renewable             28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
        raw materials were assessed at too low a level — is                 additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
        unjustified.
                                                                            an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
                                                                            liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
—       Lack of precision concerning the financial years to which           exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
        expenditure is imputed. In its sixth plea in law, the level
        of expenditure imputed by the decision is contested. The            (1 ) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
        Commission’s decision is in part imprecise and is invalid           (2 ) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
        in so far as its operative part and the statements in the
        Annex concerning an amount of EUR 12 927 107 are
        inconsiystent. In the 1999 and 2000 financial years, the
        Land of Brandenburg incurred expenditure for crop years
        1999 and 2000 of EUR 270 387 968. Applying the flat
        rate of 5 % imposed by the Commission, which is                             Removal from the register of Case C-302/01 ( 1)
        being contested, that results in an imputed amount of
        EUR 13 519 398. However, an amount of
                                                                                                      (2003/C 146/58)
        EUR 262 446 505 was imputed. Consequently an
        amount of EUR 12 927 107 was wrongly imputed.
                                                                            By order of 6 February 2003 the President of the Court of
—       Incorrect risk assessment. Finally, in its seventh plea in          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        law, it is argued that the declared flat-rate imputation of         from the register of Case C-302/01: Commission of the
        risk of 5 % is defective simply because no systematic               European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
        administrative or checking errors were the subject of
        complaint in Brandenburg in the relevant period. More-
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
        over, the calculation of the alleged loss to the EAGGF was
        made using inappropriate methods and arrived at in
        breach of Article 10 EC.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                     Removal from the register of Case C-86/02 (1)
     financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
     p. 103).                                                                                         (2003/C 146/59)
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 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 1995 L 158, p. 6).         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December                  of the European Communities ordered the removal from
     1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated            the register of Case C-86/02: Commission of the European
     administration and control system for certain Community aid            Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
     schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36).
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.