CELEX: 62012CN0003
Language: en
Date: 2012-01-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-3/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Syndicat OP 84 v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR

24.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 89/12
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Syndicat OP 84 v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR
   (Case C-3/12)
   2012/C 89/19
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Conseil d’État
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Syndicat OP 84
   
      Respondent: Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must the ‘scrutiny period’ from 1 July of one year to 30 June of the following year, as referred to in Article 2(4) of Council Regulation No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, (1) be understood as the period during which the authorities responsible for the scrutiny must inform the producer organisation of the planned inspection, and commence and complete the scrutiny procedure in its entirety on-site and on paper and communicate the results of that scrutiny, or must it be understood as the period during which only some of those procedural steps have to be carried out?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Where the conduct or the shortcomings of the producer organisation make it impossible to carry out effectively an inspection initiated during one scrutiny period, may the authorities — despite the absence of express provision to that effect in [Regulation No 4045/89] — carry out the scrutiny procedure during the subsequent scrutiny period, without causing the procedure to be vitiated by a defect which the organisation under scrutiny could rely on against the decision setting out the inferences to be drawn from the findings of that inspection?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the previous question falls to be answered in the negative, may the authorities, where the conduct or the shortcomings of the producer organisation make an effective scrutiny impossible, require repayment of the financial assistance received? Does such a measure constitute one of the penalties for which provision may be made pursuant to Article 6 of [Regulation No 4045/89]?
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18).