C-30/72

JUDGMENT OF 8. 2. 1973 — CASE 30/72 COMMISSION v ITALY

CELEX: 61972CJ0030
Datum: 1973-02-08
Källa: eur-lex.europa.eu

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, H. Kutscher (Rapporteur), C. Ó Dalaigh and M. Sørensen, Judges, Advocate-General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedure

II — Submissions of the parties

III — Pleas and arguments of the parties

Grounds of judgment

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

1. (a) On 2 December 1969, the Council, considering inter aliathat there is a certain disproportion, both quantitative and qualitative, of supply in relation to demand on the Community market for apples, pears and peaches, adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 laying down certain measures for reorganizing Community, fruit production which entered into force on 1 January 1970 (OJ L 318, p. 15). Certain provisions of that Regulation were amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2476/70 of the Council of 7 December 1970 (OJ L 266, p. 2). Taking those amendments into account, the elements of Regulation No 2517/69 of interest in this case may be summarized as follows: Under the terms of Article 1, at their request . . ., Community fruit growers shall qualify for a premium for grubbing apple, pear and peach trees; the rules for granting that premium were to be determined by the Commission acting on the opinion of the Management Committee. Requests for the granting of premiums were to be lodged before 1 March 1971; the granting of a premium is subject to a written undertaking by the beneficiary to proceed, before 1 March 1973, with the grubbing of the fruit trees for which the premium is claimed and to abstain, for a period of five years, from any replanting of apple, pear and peach trees (Article 2). The amount of the premium shall be paid in a single instalment when the applicant proves that he has actually completed the grubbing (Article 3 (2), as amended); the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund shall refund to Member States 50 % of the premiums paid (Article 7). (b) On the basis of Regulation No 2517/69, the Commission on 24 December 1969 adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2637/69 fixing the amount of the premium for grubbing apple trees pear trees and peach trees and the conditions for granting such premium (OJ L 327, p. 31). This Regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 1970 and was partially-amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2565/70 of 18 December 1970 (OJ L 275, p. 22) provides inter alia as follows: The application for the grant of the premium shall be lodged with the competent authority indicated by each Member State and must contain certain information (Article 4). On receipt of the application the representative nominated by the competent authority shall check that information; then, after having recorded the signed undertaking of the party concerned not to plant any new fruit trees for a period of five years, the competent authority shall state that the application can be approved (Article 5). At the request of the party concerned the representative nominated by the competent authority shall certify that grubbing has been carried out and when it took place (Article 6). The grower shall furnish the proof referred to in the second sentence of Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 through the certificate referred to in Article 6 (Article 7).

2. (a) By Circular No 7 of 14 February 1970, the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry drew the attention of the competent local authorities to Regulation No 2517/69. While declaring that it reserved the right to give appropriate instructions, as soon as possible, for the granting of the premium, it prohibited the said authorites from granting subsidies in respect of expenditure incurred on work carried out on apple orchards and pear and peach plantations. By Circular No 17 of 12 May 1970, the same Ministry: after setting out the aims of Regulations Nos 2517/69 and 2637/69 repeated certain essential details: gave detailed instructions as to lodging the applications for the grant of premiums, recording them, checking on the spot the information contained in the application, taking the decision to grant the premium, certifying, at the request of the party concerned, that grubbing has taken place, granting the premium and the steps to be taken in cases where the beneficiary, in breach of the signed undertaking, carries out replanting. The forms for use at the different stages of the procedure (application forms, valuation reports etc.) were attached to this circular, which ended as follows: After having detailed, the procedure to be followed for granting and paying premiums for grubbing, the Ministry emphasizes that; while waiting for the legislative action allocating the necessary funds for implementing the measures here provided for, the Assessorship and Inspection Authorities must be content, for the moment, to give these measures appropriate publicity and to receive applications lodged by the growers concerned. On 26 November 1970, the said Ministry sent to the local authorities Circular No 24 which stated inter alia: As the legislative action in question has not yet been taken to date and it is not possible to foresee when it will be, and moreover as various provincial Agricultural Inspection Authorities, organizations, associations and private individuals are pressing the department rapidly to implement the Community provisions, and also taking into account the technically favourable times for grubbing orchards, it has been decided to authorize the appropriate Inspection Authorities by means of this circular to carry out preliminary on-the-spot checks. Since it is impossible for the Inspection Authorities to give any formal undertaking relating to the granting of the premiums in question before the said legislative action has been taken, it is explicitly stated that, after carrying out the preliminary on-the-spot checks, the Inspection Authorities can, if they think fit, issue provisional grubbing authorizations, stating expressly in the said authorization however that the Inspection Authority gives no undertaking concerning the granting of the premium, as any decision as to this can only be taken afterwards, according to the funds allocated for this purpose and the criteria laid down for implementing the particular measures. (b) By letter dated 3 February 1971, the Commission, after stating that to its knowledge the system set up by the provisions referred to has not yet been put into effect in detail in Italy, drew the attention of the Italian Government to the disadvantages arising from this situation, and called on that government to take the necessary measures within two months, failing which it would be obliged to initiate without further delay the procedures provided for by the Treaty for ensuring the application of Community law. As the Italian Government did not reply to this letter, the Commission, by letter dated 2 June 1971, initiated the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the Treaty, by requiring the said Government to submit its observations to it within two months. When it did not receive those observations, the Commission, on 14 October 1971, delivered a reasoned opinion, within the meaning of Article 169 abovementioned stating that the Italian Republic had failed in its obligations under Regulations Nos 2517/69 and 2637/69, and calling upon that Member State to take the required measures within one month. The statement of reasons in the opinion contains, inter alia, the following passage: It appears from information available to the Commission that the Italian Government has not enacted the body of provisions allowing for the effective application within its territory of the system of premiums for grubbing fruit trees described above. In particular, the necessary budgetary provisions allowing for the payment of the premiums have not yet been adopted. Under these circumstances, and according to the information of the Commission, no premium has been paid in Italy for grubbing fruit trees, even though 11000 Italian growers in respect of a total surface area of 30000 hectares, have lodged applications in this connection before the deadline of 1 March 1971. The opinion was communicated to the Italian Government by letter dated 19 October 1971. By letter of 29 November 1971, the Permanent Representative of Italy made known to the Commission that in order to fulfil the undertakings made at Community level and also to answer the expectations of national growers, the Italian authorities have drawn up an outline draft law for the release of the funds for the payment of the premiums for grubbing fruit trees in question. This measure, which was communicated to the Ministers concerned on 9 November last, will as soon as possible be entered on the agenda of the Council of Ministers for the necessary debate. The letter ended by confirming that the departments concerned shall take all possible steps to ensure that the legislative procedure relating to the draft law in question can be concluded as quickly as possible. By telex of 29 December 1971, the Director-General of Agriculture, after discussions at the meeting of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables on 21 December, requested Italy to furnish the following supplementary information: 1. After having checked the information contained in the applications for the grant of the premiums lodged by the persons concerned and having recorded the undertaking of the growers referred to in Article 5, second paragraph, of Regulation (EEC) No 2637/69, has the competent national authority stated that those applications can be approved? 2. What are the surface areas over which grubbing operations have already been carried out? 3. In respect of those surface areas, has the representative nominated by the competent authority certified that grubbing has been carried out and when it took place? By telex of 25 March 1972, the Permanent Representative of Italy replied that a long time ago procedural instructions have been sent to the Ispettorati provinciali agricoltura concerning the acceptance of applications for the grant of premiums for grubbing apple, pear and peach trees, as well as the carrying out of preliminary on-the-spot checks. It has not been possible, however, to give any formal undertaking to the applicant farmers, as the national measure releasing the necessary funds has not yet passed through the legislative procedure. With regard to questions 2 and 3, the Permanent Representative, while hoping to be able to complete the information requested confined himself to communicating definitive figures of the applications for premiums filed within the time laid down and the surface areas concerned. On 8 June 1972 the Commission commenced the present action. The Italian Government declined to submit a rejoinder. After hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the opinion of the Advocate-General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiries. However, it invited the Commission, by letter dated 30 November 1972, to specify in writing the measures other than the payment of premiums which, according to it, should have been taken by Italy, and to indicate the date by which this should have been done in order to fulfil its obligation to enact the body of provisions allowing for the effective application within its territory of the system of premiums for grubbing fruit trees. The Commission complied with this request. The oral arguments of the parties were heard on 10 January 1973. The Advocate-General presented his opinion at the hearing on 24 January 1973.

II —. Submissions of the parties

(a). Find that the Italian Republic, in not having enacted a body of provisions allowing for the effective application within its territory of the system of premiums for grubbing fruit trees, has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under Regulation (EEC) Nos 2517/69 and 2637/69;

(b). order the Italian Republic to bear the costs.

III —. Pleas and arguments of the parties

1. By application lodged with the Registry on 8 June 1972, the Commission brought an action before the Court, under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, for a declaration that the Italian Republic, in not having enacted the body of provisions necessary for the effective application of Regulation No 2517/69 of the Council of 9 December 1969 (OJ L 318, p. 15) establishing a system of premiums for grubbing fruit trees with a view to reorganizing Community fruit production, as well as of the implementing Regulation No 2637/69 of 24 December 1969 (OJ L 327, p. 31), has failed in its obligations arising under those Regulations.

2. The Commission firstly points out that the Italian Republic allowed an excessive amount of time to pass before empowering the competent local authorities, by circular of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of 26 November 1970, to proceed to certify that the applications for premiums lodged by the growers concerned could be approved, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation No 2637/69.

3. The reasoned opinion delivered by the Commission on 14 October 1971 was based on the fact that the Italian Republic had not enacted the body of provisions allowing for the effective application within its territory of the system of premiums for grubbing fruit trees.

4. The Commission then claims that the Italian Republic has not yet empowered the competent authorities to certify, at the request of the party concerned that grubbing has been carried out in those cases where it has already taken place.

5. At the hearing on 10 January 1973, the Italian Government alleged that these certifications had since been carried out.

6. In so far as its department has actually carried out those checks and certifications, it can be seen from the explanations of the Italian Government itself that this was done at the earliest in November 1972.

7. A system with this in view obliges the Member States to act within a time-limit which allows for the attainment of that end, particularly by carrying out the checks and certifications in question so as to ensure that growers can obtain the premium as soon as they have satisfied the required conditions.

8. It was imperative,, for the effectiveness of the measures adopted to observe such a time limit, as they would have been able to achieve their objective on condition that they were implemented simultaneously in all Member States. It appears therefore that the delay by the Italian Republic in checking and certifying as provided for by Article 6 of Regulation No 2637/69 amounted to a failure to fulfil its obligations.

9. Finally the Commission complains that the Italian Republic has not paid the premiums for grubbing fruit trees, provided for by Regulations Nos 2517/69 and 2637/69, for the benefit of growers entitled to claim them.

10. The Italian Government does not dispute the truth of that allegation, but argues that political circumstances had made it impossible for the competent authorities, despite their good intentions, to fulfil their obligations with the expedition desired.

11. A Member State cannot plead the provisions or practices of its internal order in order to justify failure to observe obligations and time-limits arising from Community Regulations.

12. It appears, therefore, that the fact that the Italian Republic has not paid the premiums for grubbing fruit trees constitute a failure to fulfit its obligations under Community law.

13. It follows from all these considerations that the Italian Republic has failed in its obligations arising under Regulations Nos 2517/69 and 2637/69, in not having enacted the body of provisions allowing for the effective application within its territory of the system of premiums for grubbing fruit trees established by those Regulations.

14. Under the terms of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to bear the costs.

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the observations of the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Articles 5 and 169; Having regard to Regulation No 2517/69 of the Council of 9 December 1969 (OJ L 318, p. 15); Having regard to Regulation No 2637/69 of the Commission of 24 December 1969 (OJ L 327, p. 31); Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT hereby:

1 Finds that the Italian Republic, in not having enacted the body of provisions allowing for the effective application within its territory of the system of premiums for grubbing fruit trees, has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under Regulations (EEC) Nos 2517/69 of the Council of 9 December 1969 (OJ L 318, p. 15) and 2637/69 of the Commission of 24 December 1969 (OJ L 327, p. 31);

2 Orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs.