Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2004-09-09
50. As for the Greek Government’s argument that the failure to carry out inspections in those two nomoi during the 1995/96 marketing year was an isolated event, due to a temporary lack of staff, it should be noted that it is for the authorities of the Member States to implement a reliable and operational supervisory system organised in such as way as to prevent such shortcomings arising (see, to that effect, Case C-157/00 Greece  v Commission  [2003] ECR I-153, paragraph 18).
61. In those circumstances, there is no need in the present case for the Commission to adduce any other evidence of the lack of a register of olive cultivation and computerised files for the 1997 and 1998 financial years, other than that which it had adduced for the 1996 financial year, but it is rather for the Member State concerned to show that, since the 1996 financial year, it in fact implemented the register of olive cultivation and the computerised files (see, to that effect, Greece  v Commission , paragraph 18). Since the Hellenic Republic has adduced no such evidence, a financial correction was justified in that regard.
62. Even if alternative inspections had been organised, it is to be noted that where a regulation lays down specific measures of supervision, the Member States must apply them and it is unnecessary to examine the merits of their view that another system of supervision is more effective (see Case C-130/99 Spain  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-3005, paragraph 87).
63. As regards the Greek Government’s argument that an action for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations would have been more appropriate in penalising the delay in establishing the register of olive cultivation, it should be noted that an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC and the procedure for the clearance of the EAGGF accounts pursue different aims and are governed by different rules. In the latter procedure, the Commission is under an obligation to carry out a financial correction if the expenditure in respect of which financing has been requested has not been carried out in accordance with Community rules. Such a financial correction is designed to avoid the EAGGF’s being burdened with amounts that have not served to finance an objective pursued by the Community legislation in question and therefore, contrary to what the Greek Government maintains, does not constitute a penalty (see Case C-247/98 Greece  v Commission  [2001] ECR I-1, paragraphs 13 and 14).
67. On the duty to state reasons, the Court has consistently held that, in the particular context of the preparation of decisions relating to the clearance of accounts, the statement of reasons for a decision must be regarded as sufficient if the Member State to which the decision was addressed was sufficiently involved in the process by which the decision came about and was aware of the reasons for which the Commission took the view that it must not charge the sum in dispute to the EAGGF (Case C-242/97 Belgium  v Commission  [2000] ECR I-3421, paragraph 95, and Case C-118/99 France  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-747, paragraph 54).
70. As for the 5% figure imposed by the Commission in its calculation of the correction in respect of production aid for olive oil, it should be noted that the register of olive cultivation and the computerised files are fundamental components of the Community system of control of aid. As long as those components have not been introduced, it is in principle justified to impose the correction rate of 10% laid down by the Commission’s guidelines, as set out in its Document No VI/5330/97.
83. Faced with a series of infringements as serious as those found by the Commission, it is for the Member State concerned to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that the Commission’s findings are incorrect. That Member State cannot rebut the Commission’s findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system (see Case C-157/00 Greece  v Commission , paragraphs 17 and 18).
108. As regards the statistics for 1995 and 1996, the information submitted to the Court does not show that the revised data referred to by the Greek Government were accurate or that they were submitted in accordance with the Community rules. In this context, the Hellenic Republic has not established the existence of a reliable and operational supervisory system, as it is required to do (see Case C-157/00 Commission  v Greece , paragraph 18).
118. In those circumstances, according to the case-law, it is for the Greek Government to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that it has made checks (see Case C-157/00 Commission  v Greece , paragraphs 16 and 17).
128. As regards the risk analysis provided for by Article 6(4) of Regulation No 3887/92, it should be noted that a Member State cannot rebut the Commission’s findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system (see Case C-157/00 Greece  v Commission , paragraph 18).
129. In the present case, the Greek Government has not adduced such evidence and, therefore, the Commission’s findings relating to the failure to carry out risk analysis have not been rebutted.