C-30/72

A Member State cannot plead the Community, in accordance with the provisions or practices of its internal general obligations imposed on Member order, particularly budgetary provisions States by Article 5 of the Treaty, and, if or practices, in order to justify failure to necessary, to adapt its procedures for observe obligations and time-limits budgetary provision in such a way that arising under Community regulations. they do not form an obstacle to the It falls to each Member State to implementation, within the prescribed recognize the consequences, in its time-limits, of its obligations within the internal order, of its adherence to the framework of the Treaty.

In Case 30/72

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by its Legal Adviser, Giancarlo Olmi, as agent, having chosen its address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of its Legal Adviser, Emile Reuter, 4 boulevard Royal,

applicant,

v

ITALIAN REPUBLIC, represented by Adolfo Maresca, Ambassador, as agent, assisted by Giorgio Zagari, Assistant at the Avvocatura generale dello Stato, having chosen its address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,

Advocate-General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedure of Regulation No 2517/69 of interest in this case may be summarized as follows: The facts and procedure may be summarized as follows: Under the terms of Article 1, 'at their request . . ., Community fruit growers 1. (a) On 2 December 1969, the shall qualify for a premium for grubbing Council, considering inter alia 'that there apple, pear and peach trees'; the rules is a certain disproportion, both for granting that premium were to be quantitative and qualitative, of supply in determined by the Commission acting on relation to demand on the Community the opinion of the Management market for apples, pears and peaches', Committee. Requests for the granting of adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 premiums were to be lodged before 1 'laying down certain measures for March 1971; the granting of a premium reorganizing Community, fruit pro­ is subject to a written undertaking by the duction' which entered into force on 1 beneficiary to proceed, before 1 March January 1970 (OJ L 318, p. 15). Certain 1973, with the grubbing of the fruit trees provisions of that Regulation were for which the premium is claimed and to amended by Regulation (EEC) No abstain, for a period of five years, from 2476/70 of the Council of 7 December any replanting of apple, pear and peach 1970 (OJ L 266, p. 2). Taking those trees (Article 2). The amount of the amendments into account, the elements premium 'shall be paid in a single

COMMISSION v ITALY

(b) On the basis of Regulation No — after setting out the aims of 2517/69, the Commission on 24 Regulations Nos 2517/69 and December 1969 adopted Regulation 2637/69 repeated certain essential (EEC) No 2637/69 'fixing the amount of details: the premium for grubbing apple trees pear trees and peach trees and the — gave detailed instructions as to conditions for granting such premium' lodging the applications for the (OJ L 327, p. 31). This Regulation, grant of premiums, recording them, which entered into force on 1 January checking on the spot the information 1970 and was partially-amended by contained in the application, taking Regulation (EEC) No 2565/70 of 18 the 'decision to grant the premium', December 1970 (OJ L 275, p. 22) certifying, at the request of the party provides inter alia as follows: concerned, that grubbing has taken 'The application for the grant of the place, granting the premium and the steps to be taken in cases where the premium shall be lodged with the beneficiary, in breach of the signed competent authority indicated by each Member State' and must contain certain undertaking, carries out replanting. information (Article 4). 'On receipt of The forms for use at the different stages the application the representative of the procedure (application forms, nominated by the competent authority valuation reports etc.) were attached to shall check' that information; then, after this circular, which ended as follows: having recorded the signed undertaking of the party concerned not to plant any 'After having detailed, the procedure to new fruit trees for a period of five years, be followed for granting and paying the competent authority 'shall state that premiums for grubbing, the Ministry the application can be approved' (Article emphasizes that; while waiting for the 5). 'At the request of the party legislative action allocating the necessary concerned the representative nominated funds for implementing the measures by the competent "authority shall certify here provided for, the Assessorship and that grubbing has been carried out and Inspection Authorities must be content, when it took place' (Article 6). 'The for the moment, to give these measures grower shall furnish the proof referred appropriate publicity and to receive to in the second sentence of Article 3 (2) applications lodged by the growers concerned'. of Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 through the certificate referred to in On 26 November 1970, the said Ministry Article 6' (Article 7). sent to the local authorities Circular No 24 which stated inter alia: 2. (a) By Circular No 7 of 14 February 1970, the Italian Ministry of Agriculture 'As the legislative action in question has and Forestry drew the attention of the not yet been taken to date and it is not competent local authorities to Regula­ possible to foresee when it will be, and tion No 2517/69. While declaring that it moreover as various provincial 'reserved the right to give appropriate Agricultural Inspection Authorities, instructions, as soon as possible, for the organizations, associations and private granting of the premium', it prohibited individuals are pressing the department

Since it is impossible for the Inspection 'It appears from information available to Authorities to give any formal the Commission that the Italian undertaking relating to the granting of Government has not enacted the body of the premiums in question before the said provisions allowing for the effective legislative action has been taken, it is application within its territory of the explicitly stated that, after carrying out system of premiums for grubbing fruit the preliminary on-the-spot checks, the trees described above. In particular, the Inspection Authorities can, if they think necessary budgetary provisions allowing fit, issue provisional grubbing authoriza­ for the payment of the premiums have tions, stating expressly in the said not yet been adopted. authorization however that the Under these circumstances, and Inspection Authority gives no according to the information of the undertaking concerning the granting of Commission, no premium has been paid the premium, as any decision as to this in Italy for grubbing fruit trees, even can only be taken afterwards, according though 11 000 Italian growers in respect to the funds allocated for this purpose of a total surface area of 30 000 hectares, and the criteria laid down for have lodged applications in this implementing the particular measures'. connection before the deadline of 1 March 1971.' (b) By letter dated 3 February 1971, the Commission, after stating that to its The opinion was communicated to the knowledge the system set up by the Italian Government by letter dated 19 provisions referred to 'has not yet been October 1971. put into effect in detail in Italy', drew By letter of 29 November 1971, the the attention of the Italian Government Permanent Representative of Italy made to the disadvantages arising from this known to the Commission that 'in order situation, and called on that government to fulfil the undertakings made at to take the necessary measures within Community level and also to answer the two months, failing which it would be expectations of national growers, the obliged 'to initiate without further delay Italian authorities have drawn up an the procedures provided for by the outline draft law for the release of the Treaty for ensuring the application of funds for the payment of the premiums Community law'. for grubbing fruit trees in question. This As the Italian Government did not reply measure, which was communicated to to this letter, the Commission, by letter the Ministers concerned on 9 November dated 2 June 1971, initiated the last, will as soon as possible be entered procedure provided for in Article 169 of on the agenda of the Council of the Treaty, by requiring the said Ministers for the necessary debate'. The Government to submit its observations letter ended by confirming that 'the to it within two months. departments concerned shall take all When it did not receive those possible steps to ensure that the observations, the Commission, on 14 legislative procedure relating to the draft October 1971, delivered a reasoned law in question can be concluded as opinion, within the meaning of Article quickly as possible'. 169 abovementioned stating that the By telex of 29 December 1971, the Italian Republic had failed in its Director-General of Agriculture, after

discussions at the meeting of the After hearing the report of the Management Committee for Fruit and Judge-Rapporteur and the opinion of the Vegetables on 21 December, requested Advocate-General, the Court decided to Italy to furnish the following open the oral procedure without any supplementary information: preparatory inquiries. However, it invited the Commission, by letter dated '1. After having checked the information 30 November 1972, 'to specify in writing contained in the applications for the the measures other than the payment of grant of the premiums lodged by the premiums which, according to it, should persons concerned and having have been taken by Italy, and to indicate recorded the undertaking of the the date by which this should have been growers referred to in Article 5, done in order to fulfil its obligation to second paragraph, of Regulation enact the body of provisions allowing (EEC) No 2637/69, has the for the effective application within its competent national authority stated territory of the system of premiums for that those applications can be grubbing fruit trees'. The Commission approved? complied with this request. 2. What are the surface areas over The oral arguments of the parties were which grubbing operations have heard on 10 January 1973. already been carried out? The Advocate-General presented his 3. In respect of those surface areas, has opinion at the hearing on 24 January the representative nominated by the 1973. competent authority certified that grubbing has been carried out and when it took place?' II — Submissions of the By telex of 25 March 1972, the parties Permanent Representative of Italy replied 'that a long time ago procedural The Commission submits that the Court instructions have been sent to the should: "Ispettorati provinciali agricoltura" con­ cerning the acceptance of applications '(a) Find that the Italian Republic, in for the grant of premiums for grubbing not having enacted a body of apple, pear and peach trees, as well as provisions allowing for the effective the carrying out of preliminary application within its territory of on-the-spot checks. It has not been the system of premiums for possible, however, to give any formal grubbing fruit trees, has failed to undertaking to the applicant farmers, as fulfil its obligations arising under the national measure releasing the Regulation (EEC) Nos 2517/69 and necessary funds has not yet passed 2637/69; through the legislative procedure'. With regard to questions 2 and 3, the (b) order the Italian Republic to bear the costs.' Permanent Representative, 'while hoping to be able to complete the information requested' confined himself to communi­ cating definitive figures of the applications for premiums filed within III — Pleas and arguments the time laid down and the surface areas of the parties concerned.

The application of the system thereby set any draft law before its Parliament since up was entrusted to the Member States the adoption of Regulations Nos 2517/69 and 2637/69 and that it had whose duty it was to make the necessary administrative and financial provisions. allowed two years to pass without It now appears that the Italian Republic taking action despite reminders from the has not enacted a body of such Commission. It was only at the provisions and that the system of expiration of the time-limit set to premiums in question has not been conform with the reasoned opinion that effectively applied within Italian the said government communicated the information that an 'outline draft law' territory. In fact, although the Italian Government sent certain instructions to had been drawn up and that this matter the competent bodies, it has not been would 'as soon as possible be entered on able to supply information on the the agenda of the Council of carrying out of the other obligations Ministers ...'. The Commission is not

arising under the regulations in question aware of the date on which a draft law

COMMISSION v ITALY

This provision of production and new social refers equally to failure of the obligation experiments'. Therefore, it is only since to act within the time laid down; the month of November 1971 'that it has further, it enables the Commission to been possible to communicate to the bring the matter before the Court if the other departments for their approval the State concerned does not comply with preliminary draft of the financial law, the reasoned opinion within the period drafted by the competent Ministries, laid down, quite apart therefore from the being those of Agriculture and Forestry question of whether there is reason to and the Treasury'. But 'it is common think that it will conform to it in the knowledge that it has been impossible to near of distant future. bring the legislative procedure to a close

initiating the procedure referred to in 1970, it is true, gave 'more than detailed' Article 169 of the Treaty without instructions as to the application of the waiting for the end of the crisis and basic provisions of Regulations Nos during a period of recess of Parliament, 2517/69 and 2637/69. But in the last at a time therefore when it was sentence, it held up the implementation impossible for the government to remedy of those regulations by blocking it at the the omission charged. The Community initial stage of registration of the institutions should follow any difficulties applications lodged. of the Member States with understand As for the circular of 26 November ing and not merely with rigid formalism. 1970, it only made a little further pro The second paragraph of Article 169 gress, since, first, it wrongly subjected entrusts the Commission with the task of the 'provisional authorizations for grub choosing the most appropriate moment bing' to an estimation of expediency, for the introduction of any appeal; when and then it enjoined the local auth doing this, it must have recourse to the orities to specify that they give no under-

The Commission, referring to the — It was only by its circular of 26 judgment of the Court of 17 May 1972 November 1970 that the Italian (Leonesio v Italian Ministry of Government authorized the compe Agriculture, premiums for slaughtering tent local authorities to proceed to dairy cows, Case No 93/71, Rec. 1972, certify that the applications for the p. 288), returns to its arguments as to grant of premiums lodged by the the direct effect of Community growers concerned could be Regulations and the impossibility for approved, in accordance with Article Member States to oppose them with 5 of Regulation No 2637/69.

for by Article 6 of Regulation No would be 'entered as soon as possible on 2637/69. In support of this assertion, the agenda of the Council of Ministers'; the Commission has placed on file a however, in its telex of 25 March 1972, certain number of formal requests it indicated that the measure in question made in November 1972, whereby 'has not yet reached the end of the legislative procedure'. It seems that at Italian growers formally applied to the competent authorities of their that time the said draft had not passed State to certify as required and to the stage of interministerial discussions. issue them with the certificate The political difficulties pointed out by referred to in Articles 6 and 7 of the the Italian Government do not explain abovementioned Regulation. why it has not placed a draft law before Parliament since the publication of the At the hearing, the Italian Government regulations in question. After all, if the stated in particular that the Agricultural practice of ad hoc financial laws was Committee of the Senate of the Italian adopted also by the other Member Republic had just approved a legislative States, each of whom in turn is involved decree concerning premiums for in elections, difficulties and crises, the grubbing fruit trees and that the plenary application of Community Regulations Assembly would deal with the matter at would be seriously compromised. its meeting on 15 January 1973.

COMMISSION v ITALY

Grounds of judgment

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'.

As this statement recessarily only refers to provisions which had not yet been enacted at the date of the opinion, it cannot be taken to include reference to the possible lateness of the abovementioned measure.

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 cer­ tifications, it can be seen from the explanations of the Italian Government itself that this was done at the earliest in November 1972.

However, under Regulations Nos 2517/69 and 2637/69 such checking and certifying should have been carried out at an earlier date, so that the Italian Republic acted outside the relevant time-limit.

While these Regulations did not lay down express time-limits for the Member States to carry out the measures they contained, nevertheless such time-limits follow from the content of these Regulations and the aims of the system established by them.

The object of these Regulations, which entered into force on 1 January 1970, is to remedy the disadvantages resulting from structural over-production which characterize the fruit sector, entailing costly interventions burdensome to the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

By the third recital in the Preamble to Regulation No 2517/69, in these circumstances 'some inducement should be offered to growers to relinquish their production, wholly or in part', and, for this purpose, provision should be made for the grant of premiums to growers who agree to grub their orchards wholly or in part.

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.

On the one hand, Italian law required that expenditure by the State must be authorized by law and, on the other hand, the political crisis in Italy at the end of 1971 and the beginning of 1972 paralysed the functioning of the

JUDGMENT OF 8. 2. 1973 — CASE 30/72

legislative authorities to the point that made it impossible to enact with the prescribed time a law covering the payment of premiums.

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.

COMMISSION v ITALY

Costs

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

The Italian Republic has failed in its pleas.

On those grounds,

Donner Kutscher Ó Dalaigh Sørensen

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 February 1973.

A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt

Registrar President