C-54/87

2. The essential facts may be summarized as 'the financial provisions of Community law follows: Following an inspection carried out are among the fundamental rules of the by the Commission's officers in June and Community legal structure which must be July 1980 in Ravenna it was found that the strictly observed if the Community is to Italian customs authorities had entered function properly'. 2 customs duties in the accounts as coming under the ECSC Treaty and therefore as national resources. The contested entit­ lements had originally been determined in January, February and March 1980. After rectification the corresponding sums were 5. The interpretation of the rules relating to credited to the Commission's account on 20 own resources and the procedures whereby September 1980. the Member States collect them and make them available to the Community must ensure that the implementation of the applicable provisions scrupulously observes that objective. That is the principle behind the decisions of the Court refusing to 3. The Commission, which at the hearing consider that a foreseeable strike may justify did not pursue the second and third claims delay in crediting own resources 3or that a of failure to fulfil obligations which it had Member State may judge whether it is originally formulated, is basically asking for opportune to comply with a request to bring a declaration that, by refusing to pay 4 forward the entering of resources. In both interest on those sums, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under 1 — OJ L 336, 27 12 1977, p 1. Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, 2 — Opinion in Case 70/86 Commission v Hellenic Republic Euratom, ECSC) No 2891/77 of 19 [1987] ECR 3545, at p. 3554 3 — Case 70/86, supra

8. The Commission denies that there has been a 'new establishment' within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 13. I would observe first of all that neither 2. It submits that any such possibility pres­ the second paragraph of Article 2 nor upposes that there has been an original Article 8, which relates to entry in the correct establishment. That is not so in the accounts (and not to crediting the account of present case since the duties were entered as the Commission) of the 'new establishments', falling under the ECSC Treaty. Accordingly calls for an interpretation, which the only date which had to be taken into undoubtedly finds its sole support in the account was the one on which the claim wording of Article 10. That article, let me ought to have been determined. Therefore recall, provides that 'the entry referred to in default interest is payable. Article9(1) shall be made at the latest by the 20th day of the second month following the month during which the entitlement was established'. 9. The Commission's view and that of the defendant State, let me point out, seem to have a common premise: In the event of a new establishment within the meaning of the 14. If the Court were to consider that the second paragraph of Article 2 the period entry is not belated if it is made within the laid down in Article 10 runs from that date above period, taken as running from the and therefore if it is observed default actual establishment, even when the latter interest is not payable. was made after a time-limit, the like view would have to be taken where a new estab­ lishment was made after an incorrect estab­ lishment, for only the actual establishment 10. That analysis leads the parties to expend of the entitlement should be taken into considerable efforts in order to show, in the account.

15. However, in Case 303/84 where the 'If it were otherwise, and the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany, which had right depended on the determination of the not determined the claim on the date laid resources by the Member States, the States down by the Community rules, refused to would in practice recover a power to impose 6 pay default interest on the ground that the taxes which they have surrendered.' entry had been made within the period prescribed by Article 10, taken as running from the actual establishment, the Court held that: 17. The fact that there is an error in accounting or establishment stricto sensu must have no effect upon the Community's entitlements. If that error brings about a 'the wording of Article 11 of Regulation No 2891/77 shows that interest is payable in delay in entry, default interest is payable respect of "any delay" in crediting the pursuant to Article 11 of the regulation. amounts to the Commission's account'. And the periods of grace which it is open to the Commission to grant in no way affect the force of the principle. It is therefore quite futile, in my view, to enquire whether And the Court further held: there is a new establishment in the present case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 2 since in any event the delay in entry is obvious and accordingly 'Regardless of the reason for the delay in the Italian Republic cannot refuse to pay making the entry in the Commission's interest pursuant to Article 10. account, interest is payable without any distinction being called for according to whether the delay was caused by failure to determine the relevant amounts by the due date or by failure to comply with the 18. The strictness of the interpretation time-limit laid down in Article 10(1) of which I am suggesting is deliberate. It Regulation No 2891/77'. 5 amounts to proposing that the Court should declare that there is an obligation on the part of the Member States to achieve a particular result as regards making available 16. In view of the terms of that judgment I the Community's own resources within a consider that there will similarly be a delay period running from the date when the in entry giving rise to default interest where claim should have been determined. The a new establishment has had to be made and diligence and accuracy displayed by national the Community has not received the sums administrative authorities cannot determine due to it before the expiry of the period laid whether 'the Community is to function 7 down in Article 10, taken as running from properly'. The Communities must 'dispose the date when the claim ought to have been of their own resources under the best 8 determined. possible conditions'.