Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2005-02-24
32. It must be pointed out first of all that the EAGGF finances only intervention undertaken in accordance with the Community rules within the framework of the common organisation of agricultural markets (see, in particular, Case C‑278/98 Netherlands  v Commission  [2001] ECR I‑1501, paragraph 38, and Case C‑349/97 Spain  v Commission  [2003] ECR I‑3851, paragraph 45).
33. It should also be noted that it is for the Commission to prove an infringement of the rules on the common organisation of the agricultural markets (see, in particular, Case C‑281/89 Italy  v Commission  [1991] ECR I‑347, paragraph 19). The Commission is therefore obliged to give reasons for its decision finding an absence of, or defects in, inspection procedures operated by the Member State in question (see Case C‑349/97 Spain  v Commission , paragraph 46).
34. However, the Commission is required not to show exhaustively that the checks carried out by the national authorities were inadequate or that the figures they have transmitted are irregular, but to produce evidence of its serious and reasonable doubt regarding such checks or figures (see Case C‑54/95 Germany  v Commission  [1999] ECR I‑35, paragraph 35).
35. The Member State, for its part, cannot rebut the Commission’s findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. If it is not able to show that they are inaccurate, the Commission’s findings can give rise to serious doubts as to the existence of an adequate and effective series of supervisory measures and inspection procedures (see Case C‑253/97 Italy  v Commission  [1999] ECR I‑7529, paragraph 7).
36. The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission is that it is the Member State which is best placed to collect and verify the data required for the clearance of EAGGF accounts; consequently, it is for that State to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its checks have been carried out and its figures are accurate and, if appropriate, that the Commission’s assertions are incorrect (Case C‑54/95 Germany  v Commission , paragraph 35, and Case C‑278/98 Netherlands  v Commission , paragraph 41).
50. As is made clear in paragraph 32 of the present judgment, the EAGGF finances only intervention undertaken in accordance with the Community rules within the framework of the common organisation of agricultural markets. The Commission is not required to prove that there has been a loss but may simply adduce sound evidence of such loss (Case C‑349/97 Spain  v Commission , paragraph 146).
68. Regulation No 1663/95, which is the implementing regulation for Regulation No 729/70, specifies, in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1), what the written communication by which the Commission notifies the results of its checks to Member States must contain (see Case C‑170/00 Finland  v Commission  [2002] ECR I‑1007, paragraph 26).
70. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, the Commission is bound, in its relations with the Member States, to respect the conditions it has imposed on itself by implementing regulations (see Case C‑170/00 Finland  v Commission , paragraph 34). A failure to observe those conditions may, depending on its significance, deprive of its efficacy the procedural guarantee accorded to Member States by Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70, which limits the period for which expenditure can be refused financing by the EAGGF (see in particular, Case C‑158/00 Luxembourg  v Commission  [2002] ECR I‑5373, paragraph 24).
74. It is clear from the case-law that the term ‘evaluation’ of expenditure, which appears in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, should be interpreted, as should its equivalent in the different language versions, as meaning that it is not necessary to state a particular figure for the value of the expenditure in question and that it is sufficient to provide the elements necessary in order to calculate that value at least approximately (see, in particular, Case C‑375/99 Spain  v Commission  [2001] ECR I‑5983, paragraph 16).
111. The support arrangements for producers of certain arable crops do not provide for any exception authorising such a retention. The Court has ruled that Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1765/92 prohibits national authorities from making a deduction from the payments made or from demanding the payment of administrative fees charged for processing applications and having the effect of reducing the amount of the aid (Joined Cases C‑36/97 and C‑37/97 Kellinghusen and Ketelsen  [1998] ECR I‑6337, paragraph 21). The same applies to agricultural cooperative associations involved in the payment of the aid in question.