European Commission v Italian Republic.
Date: 2010-06-17
39. It should also be borne in mind in this regard that, according to settled case-law, the Member States have the obligation to establish the Communities’ own resources. Article 2(1) of Regulations Nos 1552/89 and 1150/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not dispense with determining claims, even where these are disputed; otherwise, it would have to be accepted that the financial equilibrium of the Communities may be disrupted, even if only temporarily, by the conduct of a Member State (Case C‑96/89 Commission  v Netherlands  [1991] ECR I‑2461, paragraph 37; Case C‑348/97 Commission  v Germany  [2000] ECR I‑4429, paragraph 64; Case C‑392/02 Commission  v Denmark  [2005] ECR I‑9811, paragraph 60; and Commission  v Spain , paragraph 28).
40. The Member States are required to establish the Communities’ own resources entitlement as soon as their customs authorities have the necessary particulars and are accordingly in a position to calculate the amount of duties arising from a customs debt and determine the debtor ( Commission  v Denmark , paragraph 59, and Commission  v Spain , paragraph 29).
44. In that regard, it must be noted that, as the Court held in Case C‑349/07 Sopropé  [2008] ECR I‑10369, point 36, observance of the rights of the defence is a general principle of Community law which applies where the authorities are minded to adopt a measure which will adversely affect an individual.
45. However, although the principle of observance of the rights of the defence applies, inter alia, to a subsequent recovery procedure, in regard to relations between a debtor and a Member State, it cannot, as regards the relations between the Member States and the Communities, result in a Member State being entitled to disregard its obligation to enter into the accounts, within the time-limits laid down in the Community legislation, the Communities’ own resources entitlement ( Commission  v Spain , paragraph 33).
46. Furthermore, it should be noted that entry into the accounts and notification of the amount of customs duty owed, as well as the crediting of the own resources, does not prevent the debtor challenging, under Article 243 et seq .  of the Customs Code, the obligation imposed on him by means of all the arguments at his disposal.
49. With regard to default interest, it must be recalled that it follows from settled case‑law that there is an inseparable link between the obligation to establish the Communities’ own resources, the obligation to credit them to the Commission’s account within the prescribed time-limit and the obligation to pay default interest, the latter being payable regardless of the reason for the delay in making the entry in the Commission’s account (see, in particular, Case 68/88 Commission  v Greece  [1989] ECR 2965, paragraph 17; Case C‑363/00 Commission  v Italy  [2003] ECR I‑5767, paragraphs 43 and 44; and Case C‑150/07 Commission  v Portugal  [2009] ECR I‑7, paragraph 62).
50. Under Article 11 of Regulations Nos 1552/89 and 1150/2000, any delay in making the entries in the account referred to in Article 9(1) of those regulations gives rise to the payment of interest by the Member State concerned at the interest rate applicable to the entire period of delay. ( Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 91, and Case C‑275/07 Commission  v Italy  [2009] ECR I‑2005, paragraph 66).