«(EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Financial years 1996 to 1998 – Export refunds – Fruit and vegetables)»

1.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles – Conformity of expenditure with the Community rules – Obligation to supervise incumbent on the Member States (EC Treaty, Art. 5 (now Art. 10 EC); Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 8(1))

2.. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Period to which a financial correction may relate – Period after the date of the written communication of the results of checks – Whether permissible where irregularities persist (Council Regulation No 729/70, Arts 2, 3 and 5(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1))

3.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Premium for the grubbing-up of orchards – Recourse by growers to short-term leases in order to achieve the minimum area required for the grant of the premium – Whether permissible – Abnormally high number of such leases – Obligation of the Member State concerned to exercise particular vigilance (Council Regulation No 2505/95, Arts 1 and 2; Commission Regulation No 2684/95, Art. 1(2))

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 9 January 2003 (1)

((EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – 1996 to 1998 – Export refunds – Fruit and vegetables))

In Case C-157/00,

applicant,

v

defendant,

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges,

Advocate General: S. Alber,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 28 February 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 April 2002,

gives the following

The first plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

With regard, first, to the relevant legislative provisions and their interpretation, it must be observed that, according to the case-law of the Court, Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1, hereinafter Regulation No 729/70), imposes on Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, to prevent and deal with irregularities and to recover sums lost as a result of irregularities or negligence, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures. It also follows from that provision, considered in the light of the duty of faithful cooperation with the Commission laid down by Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), with particular regard to the correct utilisation of Community resources, that Member States are required to set up comprehensive administrative checks and on-the-spot inspections, thus guaranteeing the proper observance of the substantive and formal conditions for the grant of the premiums in question (Case C-247/98

The second plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

The third plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Measures to improve the production of peaches and nectarines

The first plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

The second plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

The third plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

The fourth plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Processing of peaches

The first plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

2. Each marketing year the competent authorities shall also make random checks:

2. Processors shall retain proof of payment in respect of all raw materials purchased under processing contracts or amendments thereto.3. Processors shall undergo any inspections or checks deemed necessary and shall keep such additional records as the national authorities require to conduct any checks they deem necessary. Where an inspection or checks laid down cannot be conducted for reasons attributable to the processor, despite the latter's having been formally notified thereof, no aid shall be paid in respect of the marketing year in question.

The second plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

The third plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

The fourth plea

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

hereby:

Puissochet

Schintgen

Gulmann

Macken

Colneric

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 January 2003.

R. Grass

J.-P. Puissochet

Registrar

President of the Sixth Chamber