CELEX: C2001/186/09
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-153/01: Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

30.6.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/5
      has been submitted to the customs office and that invoice              crops which need little water. The legislation which was
      — like the declaration of customs value — does not                     enacted shortly afterwards in light of experience (Council
      reveal either expressly or by implication that in the                  Regulation No 1422/97) (2) bears out the fact that neither
      context of the transaction to be assessed interest was also            the objectives nor the spirit of the applicable Community
      paid by the buyer to the seller?                                       law were prejudiced.
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                                                                             As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-
      Do the interest payments then form part of the customs                 aside in relation to irrigated arable crops, they rely on
      value of the goods?                                                    the factual circumstances (the drought and the Act of
                                                                             Accession) acknowledged by Commission Regulation
                                                                             No 1040/95 (3) and to an agreement which unfortunately
(1) OJ L 154, 21.6.1980, p. 14.                                              will be put to the test only if it is recognised by the
(2) OJ L 134, 31.5.1980, p. 1.                                               Commission.
(3) OJ L 25, 30.1.1985, p. 7.
                                                                        —    (In the alternative) The financial adjustment includes
                                                                             items which should not be included and has been
                                                                             calculated in a way that is contrary to the applicable rules.
                                                                             Although items which the Commission alleges should be
                                                                             present are included in the adjustment, the way it has
                                                                             been calculated is incorrect.
Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (Arable crops: the checks carried out in the Autonomous
                        (Case C-153/01)                                 Community of Andalusia in respect of the 1996 and 1997
                                                                        harvests were inadequate as to quality and quantity)
                        (2001/C 186/09)
                                                                        —    The checks carried out considerably exceed the minimum
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    required by the rules. The delays alleged to have occurred
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 as regards the standard-method checks cannot have any
Communities on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,                         repercussions since the checks carried out by tele-
represented by Mr Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del                       detection, in themselves, exceed the compulsory mini-
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                      mum. Furthermore, it is not surprising that the additional
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.                 checks using the standard methods were carried out in
                                                                             part after 31 August, since they are additional checks
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  taking place later than the initial checks. The Commission
                                                                             failed to respond on both occasions when it was asked
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2001 (1)                 whether it was incorrect to carry out additional checks
      excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by               after 31 August. It is inconsistent to increase the amount
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                   of the adjustment in proportion to the number of
      EAGGF, in so far as that decision is the object of the                 additional checks, since that amounts to inflicting heavier
      present action; and                                                    penalties if more checks are carried out.
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                             The Spanish authorities consider that the adjustment
                                                                             relating to the tele-detection and standard-method checks
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              in Andalusia for the 1997 harvest is void for two further
                                                                             reasons:
(Arable crops: inadequate extraordinary set-aside for the 1995
harvest)                                                                     1.    The information used by the Commission to assess
                                                                                   the 1997 harvest is incorrect since it concerns the
—     There was no failure to fulfil obligations such as to allow                  1996 harvest. There is, therefore, a manifest error of
      a financial adjustment to be made. The Spanish authorities                   fact.
      consider that they have not acted in breach of Community
      law.                                                                   2.    The adjustment relating to the 1997 harvest is
                                                                                   indefensible because there has been a breach of the
      As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-                   principle of the right to a fair hearing.
      aside in the non-irrigated areas, they submit that the
      applicable law should be interpreted purposively and in a
      factual context, on the basis of a fact recognised by the              Even if the Court were to hold that it was appropriate to
      Commission: that the exceptional drought in 1994                       make a financial adjustment, the amount fixed by the
      prompted farmers to have recourse to the production of                 Commission cannot be justified.
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         30.6.2001
(Aid for the production of olive oil)                                         EAGGF (wrongfully, by way of reductions in the monthly
                                                                              advances) but which have still not been collected from
—    Spain refers to the position adopted in Cases C-349/97 (4)               the milk purchasers responsible for the excess produced.
     and C-130/99 (5).
—    In addition, the failings which the Commission detects in         ( 1) 2001/137/EC – OJ L 50 of 21.2.2001, p. 9.
     the system do not in any way prejudice the Community              ( 2) OJ L 196 of 24.7.1997, p. 18.
     budget, given that the total quantity of olive oil produced       ( 3) OJ L 106 of 11.5.1995, p. 4.
     in Spain in the marketing years in question is equal to, or       ( 4) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997, p. 1.
     greater than, that in respect of which aid has been               ( 5) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999, p. 23.
     received.                                                         ( 6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 laying down detailed
                                                                            rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70
—    (In the alternative) The Commission must reduce the                    regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the
     percentage of the financial adjustment, since it has                   EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).
     acknowledged that the situation has improved.                     (7) OJ, English Special Edition, 1970(I), p. 21.
(Aid for the consumption of olive oil)
—    Spain refers to the position adopted in Case C-374/99.
—    (In the alternative) Prior to the letter dated 17 August
     1998, the Spanish authorities were not informed in
     writing that, in respect of the 1996 financial year,
     pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (6),          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Circuit Court,
     the intention was to exclude a part of the expenditure            County of Cork (Ireland), by judgment of that court of
     from financing in accordance with the applicable pro-             9 March 2001, in the case of Catherine Withers against
     visions, as provided for in Article 5(2)(c) of Council                                      Samantha Delaney
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 as amended (7).
                                                                                                   (Case C-158/01)
(Additional levy on milk)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 186/10)
—    The action is directed against an adjustment of
     ESP 2 426 259 870 representing default interest, made             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     on the basis that Spain did not put into effect before            European Communities by a judgment of the Circuit Court,
     1 September 1996 the additional levy on milk for                  Cork (Ireland), of 9 March 2001, which was received at the
     the period 1995/1996 in relation to the purchasers                Court Registry on 17 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
     concerned. The Commission requires the Member State               the case of Catherine Withers against Samantha Delaney, on
     concerned to pay default interest in respect of amounts           the following questions:
     not collected from the milk purchasers responsible for the
     excess produced. Spain contends that its only obligation is       I.     Whether on the true interpretation of the provisions of
     to exercise due diligence in collecting the additional                   Directives of 24th April 1972 (72/166/EEC) (1) and of
     levy and to pay the amounts actually received to the                     30th December 1983 (84/5/EEC) (2), Ireland was entitled
     Commission. Payment of the amounts still due from the                    on the 23rd of July 1995 to maintain legislation (Sec-
     producers has been required by the Spanish authorities                   tion 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Road Traffic
     from the persons concerned but the latter have brought                   (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1962) which did not
     legal proceedings and the national courts have stayed                    make compulsory insurance mandatory for passengers
     execution (requiring by way of security payment of the                   injured in a ‘part of a vehicle, other than a large public
     principal amount plus interest until the date of payment).               service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle is designed
     Therefore, the national authorities have not been negli-                 and constructed with seating accommodation for passen-
     gent since they cannot prevent the debtors from having                   gers’?
     recourse to the judicial remedies available at national
     level in respect of administrative demands for payment.           II.    If the answer to Question I is that Ireland was not so
     Furthermore, the delay in the judicial proceedings does                  entitled and was in breach of its obligations in this regard,
     not prejudice the Commission, since Spanish legislation                  is Ireland liable in damages to the plaintiff if the plaintiff
     provides in such cases that suspension of the administrat-               fails to get compensation from the MIBI, that is the body
     ive decision requiring payment is to be granted only                     authorised by Ireland under Article 1, para 4 of Council
     where a bank guarantee or equivalent security is provided,               Directive 84/5/EEC, in respect of the death of the
     covering the principal amount together with interest up                  deceased?
     to the date of the final decision.
                                                                       III. If the answer to Question I is that Ireland was in breach
—    (In the alternative) The Commission is not entitled to                   of its obligations, can the Cork Circuit Court proceed
     demand from the Member State concerned default interest                  directly to an award of Frankovich damages against the
     on amounts which the State has already paid to the                       State without applying the Directive against the defaulting