Case T-86/08

Hellenic Republic

v

European Commission

(EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Rural development — Non-compliance with payment deadlines — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice — Authority of res judicata — Time-limit of 24 months — Principle of proportionality)

Summary of the Judgment

1.      Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Limitation of refusal of financing — Twenty-four month period — Annulment of the refusal decision — Resumption of the procedure for the clearance of accounts — New financial correction concerning expenditure incurred during the 24 months preceding communication to the Member State of the results of the checks — Lawfulness

(Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), fifth para.)

2.      Court of Justice — Judgments — Interpretation of rules of law — Application to legal relationships arising and established before delivery of the decision

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

(Art. 253 EC)

4.      Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State

5.      Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Evaluation of expenditure to be excluded from Community financing — Communication after communication of the results of the checks and the discussions with the Member State

(Commission Regulation No 1663/95, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8(1))

1.      European Union law does not preclude resumption of the procedure for the clearance of accounts where there has been an annulment of the decision reached by the Commission at the end of that procedure excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). The fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy cannot prevent resumption of the procedure for the clearance of accounts, since, after the annulment of that decision, the new financial correction applied by the Commission also concerns expenditure incurred during the 24 months which preceded communication to the Member State in question of the results of the checks.

(see para. 40)

2.      The interpretation which the Court of Justice gives to a rule of European Union law clarifies and defines, where necessary, the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of its coming into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted may, and must, be applied even to legal relationships arising and established before the judgment. A Member State cannot therefore rely on the fact that a judgment in which the Court interpreted 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, was delivered before an action was brought by that Member State in another case in order to justify the fact that it was not entitled to raise a complaint based on that interpretation in that action. By not raising that complaint in the proceedings which gave rise to the annulling judgment in that case, although it had the opportunity to do so, the Member State deprived itself of any option to raise it subsequently once the time-limit for bringing proceedings had expired. Therefore, to allow the Member State to raise a complaint concerning a step in the procedure that was not affected by the annulment of a decision in order to challenge a later decision adopted at the end of the procedure which, in part, was the same as that at the end of which the annulled decision had been adopted, although there was nothing to prevent it from raising it before the Court in the proceedings which gave rise to the annulling judgment, would amount to allowing it to infringe the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the annulled decision.

(see paras 48-50, 52, 53)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 60, 104)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 72, 73, 114, 115)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 86, 87)