Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Power of Commission to review validity of expenditure — Where reasonable doubt arises — Burden of proof on the Member State

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Procedure for the clearance of accounts — Conciliation procedure — Opinion expressed by the Commission following a bilateral meeting — No binding effect — (Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8)

Summary

1. Where the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF on the ground that it was incurred as a result of a breach of Community rules for which a Member State can be held responsible, the Commission is not required to demonstrate exhaustively that the checks carried out by the Member States are inadequate, but to provide evidence of the serious and reasonable doubt it entertains concerning the checks carried out by the national authorities. The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission is that it is the State which is best placed to collect and check the data required for the clearance of EAGGF accounts, and which is consequently required to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence both that its checks are actually carried out and, if appropriate, that the Commission ' s assertions are incorrect.

see para. 35

2. In the context of the conciliation procedure provided for in Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the mere fact that the conclusions which the Agriculture Directorate-General reached after consultation of other Commission services are inconsistent with the opinion which it expressed following the bilateral discussion and with the position of the Member State concerned does not mean that the Commission has infringed the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) by rendering meaningless the obligation to hold a bilateral discussion in accordance with that subparagraph. The bilateral discussion is merely a preliminary stage in the Commission ' s decision-making process and any opinion which it expresses at the end of such a discussion does not bind it in the future. Before formally communicating its findings, the Agriculture Directorate-General may consult other Commission services. Where the Agriculture Directorate-General alters an opinion which it has previously expressed, it must be pointed out that no agreement has been reached between the parties and the Member State concerned may still request initiation of a conciliation procedure. What is important is that the bilateral discussion enabled both parties to debate all the issues in dispute and that all the issues discussed were taken into account by the Commission when it formally presented its findings.

see paras 69-70, 72