CELEX: C2000/355/13
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-332/00: Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Kingdom of Belgium against Commission of the European Communities

9.12.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/7
Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic                    With regard to arable crops and livestock premiums, it
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                   contends (sixth ground for annulment) that the Commission
                             munities                                  has exceeded the limits of its discretion in imposing the lump-
                                                                       sum deductions and that the principle of proportionality has
                                                                       been infringed.
                        (Case C-331/00)
                                                                       With regard to the 2 % deduction from the associations, it
                        (2000/C 355/12)                                contends (seventh ground for annulment) that the legislation
                                                                       has been misinterpreted and that the facts have been wrongly
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              assessed.
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic Republic,             Finally, with regard to late payments, it contends (eighth
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State        ground for annulment) that Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation
Legal Service, Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of that           No 296/96 and Article 8 of Regulation No 729/70 have been
Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that Service,           misinterpreted.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek
Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
      C(2000) 1847 Final of 5 July 2000 excluding from
      Community financing certain expenditure incurred by              Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Kingdom
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the             of Belgium against Commission of the European Com-
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                                             munities
      (EAGGF), which has been published in the Official Journal
      of the European Communities as Decision No 2000/449/EC                                    (Case C-332/00)
      (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49).
                                                                                               (2000/C 355/13)
Grounds for annulment and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 11 September
As regards arable crops and shortcomings of the integrated             2000 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Anni
administration and control system (IACS), the Hellenic Repub-          Snoecx, Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External
lic contends (first ground for annulment) that the facts               Trade and International Cooperation, acting as Agent, with an
have been assessed incorrectly and that the principle of               address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4
proportionality has been infringed. So far as concerns, in             Rue des Girondins.
particular, the alphanumeric identification system, Article 4 of
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 has been misinterpreted.                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
With regard to arable crops and poor quality of checks and             1.    Declare the application admissible and well founded;
supervision, the Hellenic Republic submits (second ground for
annulment) that the facts have been assessed incorrectly.              2.    Annul the European Commission decision of 5 July 2000
                                                                             amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
                                                                             accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
With regard to livestock premiums and, more specifically,                    expenditure for 1995 (1) of the Guarantee Section of the
failure to implement and complete the IACS, it contends (third               European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
ground for annulment) that the correction of 10 % is mistaken                (EAGGF), to the extent to which it excludes from
and unjustified.                                                             Community financing expenditure of BEF 50 763 827
                                                                             incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium in connection with
With regard to late payments (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96),                   aid relating to the sale at reduced price of butter and the
it submits (fourth ground for annulment) that the financial                  grant of aid for concentrated butter and cream intended
correction proposed is unjustified and that the principle of                 for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and
proportionality has been infringed.                                          other food products, and partially annul the European
                                                                             Commission decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from
                                                                             Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
With regard to late payment (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96), it                 the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
submits (fifth ground for annulment) that the second para-                   European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for
graph of Article 7 of Regulation No 1357/96 has been                         the financial years 1996 and 1997, in so far as it excludes
misinterpreted and that the facts have been assessed incor-                  from Community financing expenditure in the sum of
rectly.                                                                      EUR 1 602 256,45 and EUR 31 883,22 incurred by the
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/8               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
     Kingdom of Belgium in connection with aid relating to             —     Breach of Article 2 EC and of article 10 EC: the
     the sale at reduced price of butter and the grant of aid                Commission has rendered devoid of purpose the pro-
     for concentrated butter and cream intended for the                      cedure before the conciliation body by taking part therein
     manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other food                on a strictly formal basis, that is to say without meeting
     products (2);                                                           the representatives of Belgium and without giving the
                                                                             real reasons for the contested decisions.
3.   Order the Commission of the European Communities to               —     Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     pay the costs.                                                          expectations: the, Commission relies essentially on the
                                                                             one of the grounds of the decision delivered on 13 July
                                                                             1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                             Communities in a case 5 in which Regulation No 570/88
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                       was not even at issue.
—    Lack of any legal basis for the contested decisions:              (1) OJ L 1999 L 61, p. 37.
     Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                       (2) Decision 2000/448/EC and 2000/449/EC: OJ 2000 L 180, pp. 46
     No 570/88 (3) lays down the conditions for aid for the                and 49.
     use of butter for the manufacture of pastry products or           (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 of 16 February 1988
     ice-cream: the butter must, in the Member State of                    on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for
     manufacture, comply with the definition and classifi-                 butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of
                                                                           pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (OJ L 55,
     cation appearing in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC)               1.3.1988, p. 31).
     No 985/68 of the Council (4), that is to say it must be           (4) Regulation (EEC) No 985/68 of the Council of 15 July 1968
     graded ‘beurre de marque de contrôle’ in the case of                  laying down general rules for intervention on the market in butter
     Belgian butter. The Commission is wrong to contend that               and cream (OJ, English Special Edition, 68(I) p. 56).
     the conditions laid down by Article 1(3)(a) of Regulation
     No 985/68 (manufacture of butter from inter alia sour or
     sweet cream) were nevertheless applicable because they
     gave a general definition of butter and the two conditions
     were applied cumulatively under earlier rules. As a result
     of the classification ‘beurre de laiterie: qualité extra’
     adopted on 28 February 1994 by the Belgian authorities,
     the technologically adapted butter (‘BITA’) of the com-
     pany Corman, which until then benefited from the aid
     provided for in Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 570/88,          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
     started to benefit from Community aid under Article 1 of          Social no 3, Orense, by order of that court of 17 July 2000
     Regulation No 570/88, without any change having taken             in the case of Ángel Barreira Pérez against Instituto
     place in the applicable Community rules or any change             Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorerı́a General de
     having been made to the product in question.                                              la Seguridad Social
                                                                                                 (Case C-347/00)
     The conditions for the application of Articles 2 and 3
     of Regulation No 729/70, namely the existence of
     irregularities or negligence, are certainly not fulfilled in                                (2000/C 355/14)
     this case because the interpretation given to the rules by
     Belgium, even if it were to be considered incorrect —
     which is not the case — is attributable above all to breach       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     of the principle of legal certainty as a result of action         European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
     taken by the Commission itself.                                   (Social Court) no 3, Orense, Spain, of 17 July 2000, received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 20 September 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the case of Ángel Barreira Pérez against Instituto
     By virtue of the principle of subsidiarity and the settled        Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National Social Security
     case law of the Court of Justice concerning the residual          Institute) and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social (General
     powers of the Member States where Community harmon-               Social Security Fund) on the following questions:
     isation is not complete and all-embracing, Belgium remai-
     ned competent to define what it might grade as ‘beurre            1.    Must Article 1(r) and (s) [of Council Regulation No
     de marque de contrôle’.                                                 1408/71] be interpreted as meaning that periods of
                                                                             notional, equivalent contribution, which may be taken
                                                                             into account under the legislation of a Member State for
—    Breach of the principle of proportionality: the aid received            the purpose of determining the number of years of
     by Corman is of the same amount, whether on the basis                   contribution by reference to which the amount of old-
     of the allegedly unlawful Article 1 or on the basis of                  age pension is determined under domestic legislation, are
     Article 9a of Regulation No 570/88, this being accepted                 also to be considered from a legal viewpoint as ‘periods
     by the Commission of the European Communities.                          of insurance’?