Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1988-01-27
9 IT SHOULD FIRST BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION IN COMMUNITY LAW OF THE TERMS "MEAT" AND "FAT ". UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE OF THOSE TERMS MUST BE DETERMINED BY CONSIDERING THE GENERAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED AND THEIR USUAL MEANING IN EVERYDAY LANGUAGE .
15 THE FACT THAT COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2429/86 OF 31 JULY 1986 ON THE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE MEAT CONTENT OF MEAT PREPARATIONS AND PRESERVES FALLING WITHIN SUBHEADING EX 16.02 B III ( B ) 1 OF THE NOMENCLATURE CONTAINED IN THE ANNEX TO COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2184/86 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, L 210, P . 39 ) SUBSEQUENTLY ATTRIBUTED A DIFFERENT SENSE TO THE SUBHEADING IN POINT CANNOT INFLUENCE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT IN FORCE AT THE MATERIAL TIME ( SEE THE JUDGMENT OF 18 JANUARY 1984 IN CASE 327/82 EKRO V PRODUKTSCHAP VOOR VEE EN VLEES (( 1984 )) ECR 107, PARAGRAPH 22 ).
16 SINCE A RULE WHOSE BREACH INEVITABLY ENTAILS FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND PRECISE, THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE TERMS OF SUBHEADING EX 16.02 B III ( B ) 1 OF THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN 1980 AND 1981 AS A BASIS FOR IMPOSING, AT THE TIME OF THE CLEARANCE OF EAGGF ACCOUNTS, AN INTERPRETATION WHICH WAS NOT DICTATED BY THE NORMAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USED . IN SO FAR AS IT TOOK ACCOUNT, IN CALCULATING THE MEAT CONTENT, ONLY OF THE PERCENTAGE OF MEAT FREE OF ALL FAT AND REFUSED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF A PROPORTION OF FAT NORMALLY INHERENT IN MUSCLE TISSUE, THE COMMISSION MISAPPLIED THE PROVISION AT ISSUE AND THE DECISIONS MUST FOR THAT REASON BE DECLARED VOID TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE CONTESTED .
19 IN THAT REGARD, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF EAGGF FINANCES IS PRINCIPALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE COMMUNITY RULES ARE STRICTLY OBSERVED . THAT SYSTEM, BASED ON TRUST, DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY SYSTEMATIC SUPERVISION BY THE COMMISSION, WHICH MOREOVER WOULD IN PRACTICE BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO CARRY OUT . SINCE THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING WHETHER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY COMMUNITY LAW FOR THE INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE ARE FULFILLED, ANY SUPERVISION UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMMISSION CAN ONLY BE BY WAY OF SPOT CHECKS . SINCE SUCH INTERMITTENT SUPERVISION IS INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IRREGULARITIES MAY BE DISCOVERED LONG AFTER THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THEM OCCURRED . UNTIL THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN DULY CLEARED, THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 729/70 TO REFUSE TO CHARGE TO THE EAGGF REFUNDS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY RULES . THAT OBLIGATION DOES NOT DISAPPEAR MERELY BECAUSE THE ACCOUNTS ARE CLEARED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED REGULATION . NO PENALTY IS IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THAT TIME-LIMIT, WHICH MAY THEREFORE BE REGARDED, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE DECISION ON THE CLEARANCE OF THE ACCOUNTS, THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO ENSURE THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY RULES, AS A MERELY FORMAL LIMIT, SAVE WHERE THE INTERESTS OF A MEMBER STATE ARE AFFECTED .