Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2005-07-07
38. The Court has consistently held that although it is for the Commission to prove that Community rules have been infringed, once it has established such an infringement it is for the Member State to demonstrate, if appropriate, that the Commission made an error as to the financial consequences to be attached to that infringement (see to that effect, Case 49/83 Luxembourg  v Commission  [1984] ECR 2931, paragraph 30, and Case C-153/01 Spain  v Commission  [2004] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 67).
39. Furthermore, the Commission is not required to prove that there has been a loss but may simply adduce sound evidence of such loss (see Spain  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 66). The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission lies in the division of powers between the Community and the Member States concerning the common agricultural policy (see to that effect Case C-48/91 Netherlands  v Commission  [1993] ECR I-5611, paragraph 17, and Case C-238/96 Ireland  v Commission  [1998] ECR I-5801, paragraph 29).
40. 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 (see Ireland  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 30).
46. As stated in paragraph 38 above, it is for the Commission to prove that the rules of the common organisation of the agricultural markets have been infringed (see also to that effect Case C-281/89 Italy  v Commission  [1991] ECR I-347, paragraph 19, and Case C-253/97 Italy  v Commission  [1999] ECR I-7529, paragraph 6).
47. The Court has consistently held that the Commission is required not to demonstrate exhaustively that the checks carried out by the national authorities are inadequate, or that the data submitted by them are incorrect, but to adduce evidence of serious and reasonable doubt on its part regarding the checks or data (see to that effect Netherlands  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 17, and Case C-344/01 Germany  v Commission  [2004] ECR I-2081, paragraph 58).
51. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the fact that a procedure is open to improvement does not in itself justify a financial adjustment. There must be a significant failing in the application of express Community rules and such a failing must expose the EAGGF to a genuine risk of loss or irregularity (see, to this effect, Case C-318/02 Netherlands  v Commission  [2005] ECR I-0000).
62. It should be borne in mind in that regard that, as the Commission has adduced evidence of serious and reasonable doubt, the Member State cannot rebut the Commission’s findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. It is for that State to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its checks or its figures are accurate and, if appropriate, that the Commission’s assertions are incorrect (Case C‑300/02 Greece  v Commission  [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 34 to 36).
79. So far as the delay in processing the data and the risk analysis provided for in Article 6(4) of that regulation are concerned, it is appropriate to refer, as do the parties to the dispute, to the findings in respect of the animal premiums for bovine animals (see paragraphs 62 and 65 above). Thus, a Member State cannot rebut the Commission’s findings without substantiating its own assertions by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. A simple reference to the fact that such analysis is done manually is not sufficient for that purpose (see Case C‑300/02 Greece  v Commission , paragraphs 128 and 129.