C-140/78
ECLI:EU:C:1980:283
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61978CJ0140
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1980 — CASE HO/78
In Case 140/78
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by its Legal Adviser, C. Maestripieri, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of its Legal Adviser, Mario Cervino, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, applicant, v
ITALIAN REPUBLIC, represented by A. Maresca, Ambassador, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Žagari, Sostituto Avvocato Generale dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 130/66/EEC of the Council of 26 July 1966 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 216) and No 159/66/EEC of the Council of 25 October 1966 laying down further provisions for the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (Journal Officiel No 192 of 27 October 1966, p. 3286),
THE COURT,
composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, P. Pescatore and T. Koopmans, Presidents of Chambers, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and O. Due, Judges,
Advocate General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
COMMISSION v ITALY
JUDGMENT
Facts amd Issues
The facts of the case, the course of the "an amount of 15 000 000 units of procedure, the conclusions and the account shall be paid to the Italian submissions and arguments of the parties Republic for the year 1967/68 (1969 may be summarized as follows : budget) from the resources of the Guidance Section of the Fund, for the purposes of making structural I — Facts and written procedure improvements in the production and marketing of raw tobacco". 1. Article 4 of Regulation No 130/66/EEC of the Council of 26 July Paragraph (3) of that article provides 1966 on the financing of the common that the Italian Government shall before agricultural policy (Official Journal, 1 July 1967 communicate to the English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. Commission the programme of measures 216) provides in particular that which it proposes to adopt in order to "an amount of 45 000 000 units of achieve the objective referred to above. It account shall be paid in advance to the also provides that the Italian Republic Italian Republic for the year 1965/66 shall before the end of the transitional (1967 budget) from the resources of the period submit to the Commission a Guidance Section of the Fund, for the report, accompanied by supporting purpose of making structural im- documents, on expenditure incurred provements in the production and within the framework of that programme marketing of olives, olive oil, fruit and from 1 July 1967 in respect of the vegetables". measures referred to in Article 12 (1). Paragraph (3) of that article provides in particular that the Italian Republic must The time-limit for the submission of the submit to the Commission, before the reports was extended until 31 December end of the transitional period, one or 1971 by Regulation No 490/70/EEC of more reports, accompanied by sup- the Council of 17 March 1970 extending porting documents, on the expenditure the time-limit laid down by the second incurred in respect of the measures paragraph of Article 12 (3) of Regulation referred to above from 1 November 1965 No 130/66/EEC (Journal Officiel L 62 for olives and olive oil, and from of 18 March 1970, p. 3). 1 January 1966 for fruit and vegetables. Article 12 (4) of Regulation No The time-limit for the submission of the 159/66/EEC of the Council of 25 reports by the Italian Republic was October 1966 laying down further extended until 31 December 1973 by provisions for the common organization Regulation No 966/71 of the Council of of the market in fruit and vegetables 10 May 197 1°extending the time-limit (Journal Officiel No 192 of 27 October laid down in Article 4 (3) of Regulation 1966, p. 3286) provides in the third No 130/66/EEC (Official Journal, paragraph thereof: English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 255). Article 12 of Regulation No "In cases where, as regards a given year, 130/66/EEC cited above provides in the toul amount of expenditure repaid particular that to the Italian Republic in accordance
JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1980 — CASE 140/78
with the second subparagraph of this Advocate General the Court decided to paragraph is less than 40 000 000 units of open the oral procedure without any account, the difference shall be paid to it preliminary inquiry. on terms as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation N o 130/66/EEC of the Council on the financing of the common agricultural policy." II — C o n c l u s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s
2. The dates fixed for the submission of 1. In its application the Commission the reports were not met. The officers of claims that the Court should : the Commission and the Commission on the one hand and the Italian authorities (a) Declare that the Italian Republic, by on the other exchanged numerous not submitting reports and sup- memoranda on this matter. porting documents within the period prescribed by the regulations referred to below, has failed to fulfil its On 11 February 1976 the Commission obligations under Article 4 (3) of sent to the Italian Government a letter Regulation N o 130/66/EEC of the commencing the procedure laid down in Council of 26 July 1966, as amended the first paragraph of Article 169 of the by Regulation N o 966/71/EEC of EEC Treaty. In the belief that the obser- the Council of 10 May 1971, under vations submitted on 17 March 1976 by Article 12 (3) of the said Regulation the government in question were not No 130/66/EEC, as amended by satisfactory the Commission on 16 Regulation No 490/70/EEC of the November 1976 sent to the Italian Council of 17 March 1970, and Republic a reasoned opinion pursuant to under the third subparagraph of that provision. That opinion invited Italy Article 12 (4) of Regulation No to take the measures to comply with it 159/66/EEC of the Council of 25 within a period of two months. October 1966;
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the 3. By a letter of 24 January 1977 the costs. Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Communities replied to the reasoned opinion and requested an 2. The Government of the Italian appropriate extension of the time-limit Republic claims that the Court should: for the submission of the outstanding reports. On 23 December 1977 a letter from the officers of the Commission — Reject the application made by the fixed 31 January 1978 as the latest date Commission with all the conse- by which the reports had to be sent. By a quences which follow therefrom. letter of 31 January 1978 the Italian Government asked the Commission for a new extension of at least 15 months. On 14 June 1978 the Commission lodged III — S u b m i s s i o n s and argu- this application. m e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s
On hearing the report of the Judge- 1. In its application the Commission Rapporteur and the views of the states that the reports sent by the Italian
COMMISSION v ITALY
Government as at 31 December 1976, a I — Regulation No 130/66/EEC — date close to the date on which the Article 4 — aid amounting to 45 000 000 period fixed by the reasoned opinion units of account (or approximately Lit expired, appeared as follows, the state of 28 125 000 000) for structural im- those reports on 31 December 1973 provements with respect to olives, olive being given for the purpose of oil, fruit and vegetables comparison: ' (in millions of lire) Financial commitments Sums paid to beneficiaries
31. 12. 1973 31. 12. 1976 31. 12. 1973 31. 12. 1976
Olives and olive oil 14 810-1 13 677-1 7 170-9 11066-0 Fruit and vegetables 13 585-3 24553-7 5592-0 15279-6
Total 28 395-4 38 230-8 12 762-9 26 345-6
II — Regulation No 130/66/EEC — mately Lit 9 375 000 000) for structural Article 12 — aid amounting to improvements in the production and 15 000 000 units of account (or approxi- marketing of raw tobacco
(in millions of lire) Financial commitments Sums paid to beneficiaries
31- '2- 1973 31. 12. 1976 31. 12. 1973 31. 12. 1976
11443-9 11017-9 2 187-0 9454-7
III — Regulation No 159/66/EEC — mately Lit 54 562 000 000) for structural Article 12 — aid amounting to improvements in the production and 87 299 539 units of account (or approxi- marketing of fruit and vegetables only
(in millions of lire) Financial commitments Sums paid to beneficiaries
31. 12 1973 31. 12. 1976 31. 12. 1973 31. 12. 1976
39 309-0 58 564-2 2 757-7 22 752-9
The Commission claims that on the cited above have not been fulfilled by the defendant's own admission the ob- defendant. It points out that since the ligations laid down by the regulations expiry of the extended period granted by the Council more than four years have 1 — The amounts expressed in uniu of account have been elapsed as regards the obligations laid convened into lire at the official exchange rate notified to the IMF (1 u.a. = Lit 625) while the payments made down in Regulation No 130/66/EEC by the national authorities are calculated in lire with no (Article 4 (3)) and No 966/71/EEC as allowance being made for the devaluation of the Iulian currency which has occured in the meantime. well as Regulation No 159/66/EEC;
JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1980 — CASE 140/78
more than seven years have gone by commitments envisaging the use of all of since the period fixed for the obligations the funds allocated. Yet later on the laid down by Regulation No Italian administration explained to the 130/66/EEC (Article 12 (3)) and No competent bodies of the Commission the 490/70/EEC expired. legal reasons and administrative technicalities which made it impossible to complete the programmes and pay out the aid allotted by the Fund within a period which was proving totally insufficient. It was necessary, the Italian It maintains that the delay incurred in administration said, to bring those funds, the carrying out of the obligations which are incidentally, allocated in imposed by the Community has caused separate successive tranches, either the Community measures to lose much within the scope of laws in the course of of their advantage owing to the de- being adopted (Green Plan No 2) or to valuation of the lire. It accordingly deal with them by special laws auth- believes that it is not permissible for it to orizing expenditure on the completion of go no further than ascertaining that the the intervention programmes. The Italian funds allocated have been applied and Government also stresses that it had to disbursed, rather it is entitled and under go through laborious administrative a duty to require that the projects being procedures before financing the projects financed are carried out in full and that and it maintains that the delay was they are in operation. technically necessary to implement programmes often of considerable size.
The Commission contends that the various grounds relied on by the Italian The Italian Government also points out authorities to justify the considerable that it drew the Commission's attention delay have no legal foundation, as the to the fact that the institutional structure Court has repeatedly confirmed in its in Italy had been changed as a result of case-law, the last occasion being in its the creation of regions with their own judgment of 11 April 1978 in Case status on which Decree No 11 of the 100/76 Commission v Italy [1978] ECR President of the Republic of 15 January 879; it maintains that they lose all 1972 conferred powers in many spheres credibility anyhow because of the of Italian agriculture, including powers considerable length of the delay. concerning intervention in the sphere of reformative and marketing structures for agricultural and zootechnie products.
2. In its defence the Italian Government, having summarized the aid The Italian Government stresses the in question provided by the Fund points numerous contacts which took place out that the Italian administration has with the competent officers of the repeatedly stated that it could, within the Commission and the good faith which it time-limits provided, furnish reports, not showed in providing the Commission only on intervention programmes with progress reports. An agreement actually put into effect, but above all on thereon was reached with the officers the financing decided on by formal referred to.
COMMISSION v ITALY
Having thus gone over the ins and outs the Italian Government were consistent of the case and having drawn particular with the funds allocated and in keeping attention to the correspondence with the with the Community provisions. Commission the Italian Government claims that the allegations of infringement of the Community regu- lations in question are totally without foundation. The chief mistake of the Commission lies in its assertion that only expenditure on completed installations is 3. In its reply the Commission makes to be regarded as "having been the preliminary point that only the reported". The Italian Government proper, precise performance of the believes that such an assertion is obligations imposed by the Community unfounded and illogical in that, for regulations, within the time-limits fixed example, virtually all the expenditure to by them, and no later than the time-limit be allocated in order to complete the set in the reasoned opinion, may afford a reports on interventions under Regu- valid defence. On the date laid down by lation No 159/66/EEC concerned instal- the reasoned opinion the Italian lations of considerable size and national Government had not complied with the importance which had sometimes to be Commission's request. The failure to changed during construction. comply is shown in two ways: first, the time-limits fixed in accordance with the information given by the Italian Government were clearly not kept, and secondly, the regulations in question were infringed not only in the letter. It is evident from the recitals to, and The Italian Government insists that delay provisions of, those regulations that the is inherent in the approval procedure funds allocated to Italy were for a after the works have actually been specific purpose, that is to say, for the completed, and also in the administrative improvement of agricultural structures in formalities which must be undertaken Italy so that those funds should actually before the files are closed. It then have been disbursed and the works outlines the state of completion of a number of projects. completed; therefore it is not sufficient simply to "commit" the funds by including them in the budget.
In conclusion the Italian Government submits that the funds allocated to Italy Although it considers that those factors under the Community regulations in alone suffice to resolve the dispute question were entirely used by the Italian nevertheless the Commission comments administration to implement concerted on some of the statements contained in intervention programmes adapted in time the Italian Government's defence. In to the difficult and unpredictable particular it denies that the Italian economic and monetary circumstances Government gave reports to the extent to and to the technical requirements of the which it claims that it did; it points out various projects. It believes that under that the communication of six-monthly those conditions the reports furnished by progress reports was not made pursuant
JUDGMENT O F IO. 12. 1980 — CASE 140/78
to agreements with its officers but December 1973 the Italian admin- represented the application of paragraph istration had wholly decided on the use (2) of the sole article of Regulation No of all the sums made available to it by 966/71/EEC. It stresses that the the European Economic Community. It situation existing on the expiry of the insists that it is not possible to agree with period fixed in the reasoned opinion is the view maintained by the Commission the one which matters. On that date, it that only works which are completely argues, the Italian Government had not finished should be regarded as having disbursed the funds allocated to it been reported; that argument overlooks between 1968 and 1972 and the works to economic reality. The Italian Govern- be financed had not been finished. ment also denies that it is necessary to take into consideration the situation 4. In its rejoinder the Italian existing on the expiry of the period fixed Government maintains the standpoint in the reasoned opinion; it refers to the which it adopted in its defence namely reports on expenditure incurred up to 31 that Italy has complied in substance with December 1977 which it sent to the the obligations imposed upon it by the Commission by letter of 31 January Community regulations in question. The 1978. That statement of expenditure defendant argues that before 31 discloses the following:
Installations Installations in the completed course of completion Toul expenditure Funds allocated Sector Total Total n millions of expenditure expenditure lire No n millions of No in millions of lire lire
15 000 000 units tobacco 413 9785-6 3 434-8 10220-4 of account (Reg. No 130/66, 9 375 000 000 lire Art. 12) 45 000 000 units fruit, vegetables and 199 27 285-4 20 4 333-4 31618-8 of account oil 28 125 000 000 lire (Reg. No 130/66, Art. 4) 87 299 000 units fruit and vegetables 259 15861-9 64 13 013-3 28 875-2 of account (Reg. No 159/66, 54 652 000 000 lire third subparagraph of Art. 12 (4)
871 52932-9 87 17781-5 70714-4
The Italian Government contends that envisaged and achieved thanks to the the documents sent to the Commission financial assistance from the Community; show very clearly what were the it points out that during a time of objectives of the structural improvements economic crisis Italy had made
COMMISSION v ITALY
considerable efforts and provided Regulation No 130/66/EEC) have financial aid much in excess of the rise in actually been disbursed. the cost of construction materials and labour. The Italian Government further contends that it included in the budget Owing to that rectification of the sums which were equivalent to a situation, the Commission, by a letter supplement of 100% of the funds received at the Court Registry on 25 allocated by the Community. September 1980, stated its intention to abandon its application in regard to those two amounts of aid, on the under- standing that the defendant would be In view of those considerable efforts with ordered to pay the costs pursuant to which it has persevered the Italian Article 69 (4) of the Rules of Procedure. Government believes that it is not in accordance either with the spirit or the In regard to the remainder of its letter of the Community provisions relied application the Commission requested on by the Commission to concentrate on that the procedure continue since the purely formal considerations and lose payments by the Italian authorities under sight of the general thinking behind the regulations namely to achieve substantial the third aid programme concerning and positive results which is what the intervention expenditure under the administration and Italian traders have in common organization of the market in fact done. fruit and vegetables (Article 12 of Regu- lation No 159/66/EEC) amounted to only 44 722 000 000 lire on 31 August 1980, which is 81.97% of the amount granted, or 54 562 000 000 lire At the request of the Italian Government (87 299 539 units of account). the hearing, originally fixed for 14 March 1979, was postponed several times with the Commission's agreement. When invited to submit its written obser- vations on the partial withdrawal by the Commission of its application the Italian Government did not meet that request within the period accorded to it. The Italian Government submitted within the procedural time-limits fresh reports updated to 31 August 1980. According to the Commission it is evident from those documents that the amounts granted by the Fund for the IV — O r a l p r o c e d u r e first two aid programmes in question in this dispute, namely 45 000 000 units of The Italian Government, represented by account for the purpose of making G. Žagari, Avvocato dello Stato, and the structural improvements in the Commission, represented by its Legal production and marketing of olives, olive Adviser, C. Maestripieri, acting as Agent, oil, fruit and vegetables (Article 4 of presented oral argument at the hearing Regulation No 130/66/EEC) and on 7 October 1980. 15 000 000 units of account for the purpose of making structural im- provements in the production and mar- The Advocate General delivered his keting of raw tobacco (Article 12 of opinion on 28 October 1980.
JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1980 — CASE HO/78
Decision
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 June 1978 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action before the Court under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty which action, as it now stands after amendment during the procedure, seeks a declaration that by not submitting reports and supporting documents within the time-limits pre- scribed by the regulation referred to below has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 130/66/EEC of the Council of 26 July 1977 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 216), as amended by Regulation No 966/71/EEC of the Council of 10 May 1971 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 255) and under the third subparagraph of Article 12 (4) of Regulation No 159/66/EEC of the Council of 25 October 1966 laying down further provisions for the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (Journal Officiel No 192, p. 3286).
2 Under the regulations referred to above the Italian Republic received payment from the resources of the Guidance Section of the European Agri- cultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (hereinafter referred to as "the EAGGF") in the form of a fixed amount of financial aid including 45 000 000 units of account for the purpose of making structural improvements in the production and marketing of olives, olive oil, fruit and vegetables, 15 000 000 units of account for the purpose of making structural improvements in the production and marketing of raw tobacco, and an additional 87 299 539 units of account for the purpose of making structural improvements in the production and marketing of fruit and vegetables. The regulations provided that before the end of the transitional period the Italian Republic was to submit reports to the Commission together with supporting documents on the expenditure on the measures envisaged. The time-limits for the submission of the reports were extended by subsequent regulations.
3 After the reports had not been submitted within those time-limits to the sat- isfaction of the Commission the Italian authorities and the Commission exchanged numerous memoranda on the matter. On 11 February 1976 the Commission sent to the Italian Government a letter commencing the procedure contemplated by the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty. In the belief that the observations submitted by the government in question on 17 March 1976 were not satisfactory, the Commission on 16 November
COMMISSION v ITALY
1976 sent to the Italian Government a reasoned opinion pursuant to that provision. That opinion invited Italy to take the steps to comply with it within a period of two months. Following a final exchange of letters, in which the Italian Government requested fresh extensions of the time-limits, on 14 June 1978 the Commission brought this action.
4 At the request of the Italian Government the hearing was postponed several times with the Commission's agreement. During the procedure the Italian Government submitted new reports updated to 31 August 1980. It is evident from those documents that the sums granted by the EAGGF amounting to 45 000 000 units of account for the purpose of making structural improvements in the production and marketing of olives, olive oil, fruit and vegetables and 15 000 000 units of account for the purpose of making structural improvements in the production and marketing of raw tobacco have actually been paid by the Italian authorities to the persons who have completed the installations for the improvement of those structures. The Commission has consequently declared its abandonment of its application so far as those two sums of aid are concerned, on the understanding that the defendant should be ordered to pay the costs pursuant to Article 69 (4) of the Rules of Procedure. In regard to the third sum of aid of 87 299 539 units of account granted within the framework of the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, because only 44 722 700 000 lire (81.97%) of that amount has been accounted for, the Commission has requested that the proceedings be continued.
5 In the case of the latter sum of aid the third subparagraph of Article 12 (4) of Regulation No 159/66/EEC cited above refers to the conditions laid down by Article 4 of Regulation No 130/66/EEC also cited above. Paragraph (3) of that last-mentioned article provides that:
"The Italian Republic shall, before the end of the transitional period, submit to the Commission one or more reports, accompanied by supporting documents, on the expenditure incurred in respect of measures referred to
That time-limit was extended to 31 December 1973 by Regulation No 966/71/EEC cited above, the third recital to which is worded as follows:
JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1980 — CASE 140/78
""Whereas the Italian Government has applied to the Commission for an extension to 31 December 1973 of the time-limit which expired on 31 December 1969 and which was not met on account of the time needed to carry out administrative formalities and complete the relevant works."
6 According to the information provided by the parties the situation concerning the reports is as follows. The 87 299 539 units of account were roughly equivalent to 54 562 000 000 Italian lire. On 31 December 1973, the date on which the extended time-limit set by the regulations was reached, the Italian Government had undertaken financial commitments to the recipients for 39 309 000 000 lire but had paid only 2 757 700 000 lire thereof. On 31 December 1976, a date near to the expiry date laid down in the Commission's reasoned opinion, the government had undertaken financial commitments exceeding the aid from the EAGGF, but had paid only 22 752 900 000 lire. On 31 August 1980, the date of the most recent reports, the Italian Government had paid 44 722 700 000 lire which represents 81.97% of the amount in lire originally paid to the Italian Republic by the EAGGF.
7 In its defence the Italian Government first contends that the Italian administration had decided within the time-limits laid down by the regu- lations, that is to say, before 31 December 1973, on the use of the entire amount of the funds allocated by the Community, and that, in any event, financial commitments exceeding the amount of the aid in question had been entered into before the period allowed in the reasoned opinion expired. In the view of the Italian Government the programmes cannot be required to have been completed and the funds to have been actually paid before those dates. Besides, the government had made considerable financial efforts to get the installations in question finished by adding to the Italian budget additional sums to a degree which largely exceeded the increase in costs resulting from inflation. Since the objectives of the Community regulations were thereby achieved it is not in accordance either with the spirit or with the letter of the provisions relied on by the Commission to refer to purely formal considerations.
COMMISSION v ITALY
8 That argument cannot be accepted. The obligations which Community rules impose on Member States must be complied with in full and it is apparent both from the wording of Article 4 (3) of Regulation N o 130/66/EEC and from the recitals to Regulation N o 966/71/EEC that the reports required by those provisions must be on the sums paid to recipients after the works have been completed and not on the expenditure committed to future works or works in progress.
9 The Italian Government further invokes numerous legal, technical and administrative difficulties which allegedly made the completion of the programmes and the payment of the aid allocated by the EAGGF objectively impossible in the periods laid down by the regulations. First of all those funds had to be brought within the scope of laws in the course of being adopted (notably Green Plan N o 2). Then it was necessary to take into account the creation of regions in Italy on which Decree N o 11 of the President of the Republic of 15 January 1972 conferred powers in many spheres of activity in agriculture, including powers to intervene in the sphere of reformative and marketing structures for agricultural products. Finally, the government insists that the delays were technically necessary to put into effect programmes of considerable size.
io Even if the system of fixed amounts of financial aid from the EAGGF, now abolished, may have caused administrative difficulties for the Member States receiving it and even if the circumstances to which the Italian Government adverts may explain at least in part the delays which arose those circum- stances do not expunge the failure to fulfil its obligations with which it is charged. According to well-established case-law a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal systems in order to justify the failure to comply with obligations and time- limits resulting from Community rules.
n Lastly the Italian Government refers to the numerous contacts which took place between the Italian administration and the competent officers of the Commission and to the agreements reached on those occasions. It contends
JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1980 — CASE 140/78
that the Commission accepted by implication the method of accounting used by the Italian administration.
i2 Even if the Commission showed a good deal of understanding for the difficulties described above the fact remains that it never waived the submission pursuant to the regulations cited above of full reports on the sums actually paid representing the aid granted by the EAGGF. What is more, the Commission was not empowered to alter the obligations under those regu- lations.
1 3 It is therefore appropriate to declare that as regards the aid fixed at 87 299 539 units of account granted by the EAGGF in the fruit and vegetable sector, the Italian Republic, by its delay in the submission of its reports on the expenditure incurred and by submitting them for the period up to 31 August 1980, only in respect of 44 722 700 000 lire or 81.97% of the aid granted, has not satisfied the requirements of the third subparagraph of Article 12 (4) of Regulation No 159/66/EEC and of Article 4 (3) of Regu- lation N o 130/66/EEC as amended by Regulation N o 966/71/EEC and that for that reason it has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Costs
H Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs.
is Under Article 69 (4) of the Rules of Procedure a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings shall be ordered to pay the costs, unless the discontinuance or withdrawal is justified by the conduct of the opposite party.
i6 In those circumstances the Italian Republic should be ordered to pay the costs of the whole action.
COMMISSION v ITALY
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Declares that as regards the aid fixed at 87 299 539 units of account granted by the EAGGF in the fruit and vegetables sector, the Italian Republic, by its delay in the submission of its reports on the expenditure incurred and by submitting them for the period up to 31 August 1980, only in respect of 44 722 700 000 lire or 81.97% of the aid granted, has not satisfied the requirements of the third sub- paragraph of Article 12 (4) of Regulation No 159/66/EEC of the Council of 25 October 1966 laying down further provisions for the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables and of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 130/66/EEC of the Council of 26 July 1966 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Regulation No 966/71/EEC of the Council of 10 May 1971; for that reason it has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Mertens de Wilmars Pescatore Koopmans
Mackenzie Stuart O'Keeffe Bosco Due
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 December 1980.
A. Van Houtte J. Mertens de Wilmars Registrar President