Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1. Agriculture ° Common agricultural policy ° EAGGF financing ° Decision relating to the clearance of accounts ° Time-limit ° Failure to comply ° Effect on the Commission' s obligation to refuse to charge expenditure incurred without complying with the Community rules ° None

(Regulation No 729/70 of the Council, Art. 5(2))

2. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

3. Agriculture ° EAGGF ° Clearance of accounts ° Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules ° Disputed by the Member State concerned ° Burden of proof

4. Agriculture ° EAGGF ° Clearance of accounts ° Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules ° Introduction of varying degrees of disallowance of expenditure according to the risk to the EAGGF caused by the seriousness of the defective supervision imputable to the national authorities ° Disputed by the Member State concerned ° Burden of proof

5. Acts of the institutions ° Decisions ° Community decision ° Absolute impossibility of implementation in a Member State ° Obligation on the Commission and the Member State to cooperate in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Art. 5)

Summary

1. The mere fact that the clearance of the accounts with respect to the expenditure financed by the EAGGF takes place after the expiry of the period prescribed in Article 5 of Regulation No 729/70 does not dispense the Commission from its obligation to refuse to charge expenditure to the EAGGF where the checks it is able to carry out show that the expenditure was not incurred in accordance with the Community rules. That time-limit must, in the absence of any penalties for non-compliance, be regarded as a merely formal limit, save where the interests of a Member State are affected.

2. A decision concerning the clearance of the accounts with respect to the expenditure financed by the EAGGF and refusing to charge to the EAGGF a proportion of the declared expenditure does not require detailed reasons if the government concerned was closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considers that it must not charge the sums in dispute to the EAGGF.

3. Where the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF, on the ground that it was incurred as a result of breaches of Community law imputable to a Member State, it is for that State to show that the conditions for obtaining the financing refused by the Commission are fulfilled.

4. If in its function of clearing the accounts the Commission, instead of refusing the entire expenditure incurred without the checks required by the Community rules having taken place, endeavours to draw up rules to differentiate according to the degree of risk posed to the EAGGF by different levels of defective supervision, the Member State must show that those criteria are arbitrary and unfair.

5. While a Member State may plead the absolute impossibility of implementing a Community decision properly, it must in any event submit the problems linked with such implementation in good time to the appropriate institution for consideration. In such cases, the institution and the Member State must, by virtue of the rule imposing on the Member States and the Community institutions a duty of genuine cooperation which underlies, in particular, Article 5 of the Treaty, work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties while fully observing the Treaty provisions.