CELEX: C2000/211/13
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-177/00: Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

C 211/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22.7.2000
Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic                           According to the Commission, there was no entitlement
    against Commission of the European Communities                              to a refund in such cases inasmuch as the olive oil was not
                                                                                included in the list of products in Article 3(8) of Regulation
                                                                                No 3665/87 (2) laying down common detailed rules for
                          (Case C-177/00)                                       the application of the system of export refunds on
                                                                                agricultural products. The Italian authorities disagreed,
                                                                                stating that the mixed oil could not be considered a
                          (2000/C 211/13)                                       compound product within the meaning of Article 8.
                                                                           (c) O t h e r c o r r e c t i o n s — S a l e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       alcohol — Failure to lodge security
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic,                             The Commission’s desire to apply a correction is altogether
represented by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Avvocato dello                       unlawful and unjustified and reliance may not be placed
Stato Danilo Del Gaizo, acting as Agents, with an address for                   on the refusal to reopen the file after the conciliation body
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-                      had delivered its opinion.
Adelaïde.
                                                                                On the other hand, given that failure to deal with the
                                                                                argument fully during the bilateral meeting between the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission and the Italian authorities during the pro-
                                                                                cedure for the clearance of the accounts could not prejudge
                                                                                a new examination of the case, the statement put forward
— Annul the decision of the Commission C(2000) No 488                           by the Community institution to the effect that it had
     final of 1 March 2000 (1) excluding from Community                         received insufficient information to justify changing the
     financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member                       proposed correction was nothing more than an excuse in
     States under the Guarantee Section of the European                         view of the fact that, at the time, the Commission was
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so                     already in possession of all the information from which it
     far as it has carried out financial corrections to the                     would have been able to discern the reasons for the failure
     detriment of Italy, as set forth below, by excluding certain               to lodge the security and if, despite all this, the correction
     amounts from being charged to the fund itself when                         was proposed, that was due only to a misinterpretation of
     determining the total Italian expenditure charged in respect               the facts and of the legal situation, for which the Com-
     of the 1997 financial year and the period from 1995 to                     mission can only blame itself.
     1998, and
                                                                           (1) OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   (2) OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) E x p o r t r e f u n d s — e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e            Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Italian Republic
     physical monitoring of exports                                            against Commission of the European Communities
     The Italian Government challenges, first of all, the validity                                   (Case C-178/00)
     of the correction, inasmuch as the inspections carried out
     by Commission officials were carried out in blatant                                             (2000/C 211/14)
     infringement of the principles of audi alteram parte and
     the rights of the defence.                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 12 May 2000 by the Italian Republic,
     In the alternative, the correction in question is challenged          represented by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Avvocato dello
     also on the ground that the departments and operations                Stato Danilo Del Gaizo, acting as Agents, with an address for
     inspected were not a representative sample.                           service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
                                                                           Adelaïde.
(b) E x p o r t r e f u n d s — O l i v e o i l
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     EAGGF officials found that export declarations had been               — Annul Commission Decision C(2000) No 486 final of
     accepted in respect of quantities of olive oil originating                 1 March 2000 (1) amending Decision 1999/187/EC (2)
     in the Community which had been mixed with non-                            relating to the clearance of the accounts presented by
     Community olive oil refined under inward processing                        the Member States in respect of the expenditure under
     arrangements.                                                              Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance