Case C-3/12

Syndicat OP 84

v

Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

‛Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — ‘’Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 13 June 2013

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aid and premiums — Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections — Scope

   (Council Regulation No 4045/89, Art. 2)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aid and premiums — Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections — Concept of scrutiny period — Period from 1 July of one year to 30 June of the following year — Possibility for a Member State to carry out scrutiny operations beyond the end of that period — Included — Irregularity of procedure — None

   (Council Regulations No 4045/89, Art. 2(4) first para., and No 2988/95, Art. 3)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 20-26)

2.  The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Regulation No 4045/89 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities may, if necessary, carry out the scrutiny operations — notified during the scrutiny period falling between 1 July of one year and 30 June of the following year — beyond the end of that period, without causing the procedure to be marred by an irregularity which the operator under scrutiny may rely on against the decision giving due effects to the results of the scrutiny.

   Accordingly, Article 2(4) of Regulation No 4045/89 cannot be construed as conferring upon the operators concerned a right enabling them to oppose checks other or broader than those envisaged by that provision. In so far as it might have the effect of preventing the recovery of aid which has been unlawfully collected or used, such a right would imperil the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. In any event, the checks required under Regulation No 4045/89 concern operators who voluntarily signed up for the support scheme established by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF and who, in order to receive aid, accepted the performance of inspections to verify that the European Union’s resources had been used properly. Those operators cannot validly call into question the lawfulness of such scrutiny simply because it was not in conformity with the organisational rules concerning the relations between the Member States and the Commission.

   The possibility that the recipient of aid granted under the support scheme established by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF may have to undergo an inspection outwith the period specified in Article 2(4) of Regulation No 4045/89 cannot be regarded as undermining legal certainty, so long as proceedings in that connection are not yet time-barred. Pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, proceedings are, as a rule, time-barred after four years have elapsed from the time of the infringement of a provision of EU law as a result of an act or omission on the part of an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of adversely affecting the budget of the Union.

   (see paras 30-34, operative part)