CELEX: C2002/247/11
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-297/02: Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

C 247/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.10.2002
2.    Is a statutory Scheme such as that regulating the export           Furthermore, the Italian Government argues that, even if the
      of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to be                regulation were to be considered ‘substantive’, the fact that the
      considered incompatible with Articles 23, 25 and 28-29             Italian Government is not responsible for the withdrawal of
      EC in so far as it may affect trade between that island and        the amount of alcohol as a result of a judicial decision should
      the United Kingdom (together with Guernsey and the Isle            lead to the decision itself being considered a ‘case of force
      of Man) or may entail the imposition of charges arising            majeure’ which justifies replacing the product which was
      in connection with such trade?                                     withdrawn. In that case, precisely because the body responsible
                                                                         for payment is not at fault, there has been no failure to fulfil
                                                                         the obligation to assign the alcohol to the abovementioned
                                                                         stock nor, a fortiori, has their been any damage to the
                                                                         Community, whose sole interest is that Community stocks be
                                                                         maintained.
                                                                         Olive oil production aid
Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The flat-rate financial correction of 2 % of the expenditure
                         (Case C-297/02)                                 declared by Italy in respect of October 1997 to October 1998
                                                                         amounting in all to EUR 22 678 386,83 was applied as a
                                                                         result of the finding that the Italian authorities’ checks and
                                                                         inspections were inadequate. The finding was based on the
                         (2002/C 247/11)
                                                                         following three factors:
                                                                         —     belated notification of data relating to mill production by
                                                                               the paying agency AIMA (Azienda di Stato per gli
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      interventi nel mercato agricolo) to the inspection body
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   AGECONTROL;
Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato.                                 —     lack of coordination of the various inspections and checks
                                                                               between the paying agency and the inspection body;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     inadequate analysis and assessment of the available
                                                                               information on risk factors.
—     annul decision C(2002) 2263 (1) def. of 28 July 2002 in
      so far as it provides with regard to Italy: — B.4.1. -ITALY
      — Investigation No 1999 (666) on alcohol correction to             By way of answer to the Commission’s criticisms, the Italian
      budget post 1622 in respect of 1998 financial year of              Government would submit the following:
      EUR — 4 085 724,85; — B.8.1. Olive oil production aid
      — Italy financial correction of EUR — 22 678 386,33
      for the financial years 1997, 1998 and 1999
                                                                         (a)   Coordination between AIMA and AGECONTROL
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The Agency has always sought to ask AIMA timeously
                                                                         and with the necessary precision for all the appropriate
The Commission takes the view that the proper application of             computerised data in order to allow it to carry out the checks
Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 (2) requires that wherever there             required by the work schedules for each financial year, issuing
is stock missing in Community stocks the budget post must                reminders for such information when it was late in providing
automatically be adjusted without inquiring into the reasons             it. Moreover, AIMA has for some years entered formal
for the shortfall, the Member State being held objectively liable.       memoranda of understanding with the Agency with the aim
According to the Italian Government, such an interpretation              of ensuring a regular and orderly exchange of computerised
must be rejected because it does not conform with legal                  information with AGECONTROL. The claim that there was no
reasoning, or with the letter and spirit of the provision.               coordination is therefore unfounded.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 247/7
(b)   Selection criteria for mill samples for inspection                 So far as concerns the selection criteria for identifying ‘non-
                                                                         compliant’ producers to be inspected on the spot, the applicant
                                                                         states that such criteria, agreed with the competent authority
                                                                         of the Italian State, are based essentially on examination of the
                                                                         agronomic characteristics of the olive groves arising from the
                                                                         register of olive cultivation available in Italy, which thus fulfils
So far as concerns selection criteria for mill samples for               the purpose for which such a register was provided for by
inspection, the applicant points out that the various parameters         Community legislation.
are laid down in the work schedules submitted beforehand for
approval by the Member State and the European Commission.
In particular, the Commission was in a position to know of               (1 ) Commission Decision 2002/523/EC of 28 June 2002 excluding
                                                                              from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the
those criteria and it is unacceptable that its services should                Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European
argue, in support of the claim that those criteria were not                   Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ 2002
transparent, that ‘even where the Commission’s services receive               L 170, p. 73.
and approve the schedules submitted by the inspection bodies,            (2 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 of 12 December 1990
that does not mean that they cannot criticise the management                  on the accounting rules for intervention measures involving the
system following an in-depth analysis on the spot’, inasmuch                  buying-in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention
as it is no more than a formal interpretation of the Com-                     agencies, OJ 1990 L 350, p. 43.
mission’s own powers and a breach of the obligation to                   (3 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 27/85 of 4 January 1985 laying
implement the aid provided for by under Community law. The                    down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC)
great importance attributed by the Commission to the allegedly                No 2262/84 laying down special measures in respect of olive oil,
                                                                              OJ 1985 L 4, p. 5.
inadequate analysis carried out by the Italian authorities of
‘non-compliant’ producers in order to identify those mills most
‘at risk’ which ought to be inspected is inconsistent with
institutional procedure as laid down, moreover, in Community
regulations (Regulation (EEC) No 27/85) ( 3), which enable the
Member States and the European Community to guide the
work of the inspection bodies by means of the approval or                Action brought on 23 August 2002 by the Commission
modification of the draft schedules in each financial year.              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                                      Netherlands
                                                                                                    (Case C-299/02)
                                                                                                    (2002/C 247/12)
(c)   Inspection of producers                                            An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 23 August 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by K.H.I. Simonsson and
                                                                         H.M.H. Speyaert, acting as Agents.
The Commission complains that very few inspections were                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
carried out at the premises of ‘non-compliant’ producers and
that such inspections were carried out excessively late and that         (1) declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force
the most ‘at risk’ cases were not checked. The number of                        Article 311 of the Wetboek van Koophandel (Commercial
inspections carried out in each financial year at the premises                  Code) and Article 8:169 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil
of various producers is set out in the draft work schedule                      Code), imposing requirements with regard to:
drawn up by the agency and approved by the Italian State and
by the European Commission. As regards the number of                            —    the nationality of the shareholders and directors of
inspections carried out, the agency did not fail to fulfil the                       any company owning a sea-going vessel which they
obligations accepted and approved by the national authorities                        wish to have entered in the Netherlands register; and
and the Commission’s inspectors. So far as concerns the
alleged delay in carrying out inspections of ‘non-compliant’                    —    the nationality and place of residence of the directors
producers, the applicant states that such inspections of olive                       of companies owning sea-going vessels entered in
producers and of surplus production cannot be carried out                            the Netherlands register and of the natural persons
until requests for aid are submitted by the producers them-                          responsible for the day-to-day management of the
selves and after publication in the Official Journal of yields in                    establishment from which, in the Netherlands, the
similar areas. That means that, at the earliest, there can be an                     shipping business necessary for entry of a sea-going
inspection in November or December of the financial year                             vessel in the Netherlands register is conducted,
following that in which aid to be checked is requested, that is
to say when there is already another olive crop and harvest                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
following the one which has given rise to the aid request.                      obligations under Articles 43 and 48 EC;