C-385/89

Expenditure relating to export refunds on 2. In view of the fact that the Court has 6 400 tonnes of durum-wheat meal 3 already dealt elsewhere with a number of the issues raised in the present case, 2 the Hel- lenic Republic has limited the scope of its 4. In the clearance of accounts for 1986 the application to a request that the Commission Commission refused to allow the EAGGF to decision be declared void in so far as the finance expenditure submitted by the Hel- Commission made the following financial lenic Republic in connection with export adjustments in that decision: refunds in respect of 40 000 tonnes of meal. For technical reasons an adjustment in the 1986 accounts was made only in respect of 33 600 tonnes. An adjustment in respect of — DR 213 801 319 for export refunds on the balance of 6 400 tonnes was not made 6 400 tonnes of durum-wheat meal; until the 1987 accounts were cleared. It is the latter adjustment with which this case is con- cerned.

— DR 258 108 000 for co-responsibility levy in respect of grain from the 5. In justification of its refusal the Commis- 1986/87 marketing year; sion claimed that the Greek Government, in breach of the rules governing the common organization of the market in cereals, had * Original language: Danish. 1 — Decision 89/627/EEC of 15 November 1989 (OJ 1989 L 359, p. 23). 2 — Judgments in Cases C-259/87, C-334/87 and 3 — See Point 4.1.4.1 of the summary report drawn up by the C-335/87 Greece v Commission [1990] ECR 1-2845, Commission on the results of invesugations carried out in 1-2849 and 1-2875; judgment in Case C-35/88 Commission v connection with the clearance of EAGGF accounts for Greece [1990] ECR 1-3125; and judgment in Case 1987 (hereinafter 'the Summary Report'), which is submitted C-32/89 Greece v Commission [1991] ECR 1-1321. as Annex 3 to the statement of defence.

5 — That programme contract is also the subject of Case C-61/90, at present pending before the Court of Justice and brought by the Commission against the Hellenic Republic In view of the foregoing, the Greek author- under Article 169 of the E E C Treaty, in which I delivered the Opinion on 12 February 1992. ities must be held to have controlled 6 — See point 4.2.2.2.3(1) of the Summary Report, which Ís KYDEP's operations and covered its deficits included as Annex 10 to the statement of defence, along with point 4.2.2.2.3(1) and point 4.2.2.2.5 in Addendum 2(1) of during the period with which the present the Summary Report, included as Annex 1 to the Commis- proceedings are concerned. sion's reply to the questions put by the Court. 7 — The Hellenic Republic argued in its application that the Commission levied an excess amount or DR 409 456 000, even though it does not appear from the annexes submitted that the Commission was ever under an obligation to adjust that amount. That argument would also appear to have been withdrawn in the light of the Hellenic Republic's reply to the questions put by the Court, in which the Hellenic The Commission could therefore justifiably Republic states that if the Commission's calculations are used as a basis there must be an adjustment of DR refuse to recognize the amounts in issue as 256 464 000 corresponding to the co-responsibility levy on 411 000 tonnes, and not one of DR 409 456 000. The Hel- chargeable to the fund on the ground that lenic Republic's view that the financial adjustment in respect of 411 000 tonnes of cereals amounts to DR 256 464 000 and the Greek authorities took measures which not DR 258 108 000, the amount in which the Commission actually made the adjustment, may be explained by the fact that the Hellenic Republic calculated the rate of E C U 5.38/tonne at DR 624/tonne, whereas the Commission calcu- lated it at DR 628/tonne. However, the Hellenic Republic has not disputed the rate applied by the Commission. 4 — See note 2.

9. In support of its application for the Member States have correctly collected annulment of the Commission decision on co-responsibility levy cannot be satisfied this point, the Hellenic Republic argues that merely by relying on Member States' the Commission's calculation of the accounts of the amount of levy paid. The co-responsibility levy which the Hellenic Commission is obliged to select a method of Republic ought to have collected was based calculation by which it can check whether on inaccurate statistical information. the Member States correctly applied Com- munity law rules when collecting the co-responsibility levy. That is not a simple task since, inter alia, the levy is, as already mentioned, payable only if the cereals pro- I would like briefly to outline the factual and duced are used in certain ways. A supervi- legal background to that application. sory calculation therefore presupposes not only knowledge of the total cereal produc- tion, but also knowledge of the quantities used for various purposes (quantities subject to and exempt from the levy). 10. The co-responsibility levy for cereals was introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) N o 1579/86 of 23 May 1986 amend- ing Regulation (EEC) N o 2727/75 on the common organization of the market in ce- reals. 8 The levy is payable in respect of cereals produced in the Community which undergo 12. The Commission prepared a method of first processing, intervention buying or calculation which it has set out in its Sum- export in the form of grain. 9 The purpose mary Report. 1 0 behind the co-responsibility levy is to make producers more aware of market realities and thereby to prevent surplus production. The co-responsibility levy represents revenue for the E A G G E It is collected by national authorities appointed by the Member States It appears from the Report that the method and is subsequently paid over to the of calculation is based on, inter alia, statisti- EAGGF. cal information submitted at Member States' own risk and published by the European Community Statistical Office, Eurostat. Very roughly, the basis of the calculation is the fig- ure for total domestic consumption; from this 11. The Commission stated during the pro- figure must be subtracted the amounts of ceedings that the examination of whether cereals used for various purposes exempt from the levy, such as sales between produc- ers, and to it must be added amounts of ce- 8 — OJ 1986 L 139, p. 29. reals sold into intervention or for the purposes 9 — Commission Regulation (EEC) N o 2040/86 of 30 June of exportation. 1986 (OJ 1986 L 173, p. 65), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) N o 2572/86 of 12 August 1986 (OJ 1986 L 229, p. 25), lays down more detailed provisions gov- erning the payment of the co-responsibility levy for cereals. Council Regulation (EEC) N o 1584/86 of 23 May 1986 (OJ 1986 L 139, p. 41) set the amount of the co-responsibility 10 — See point 4.2.2.2.1 and point 4.2.2.2.2 in the Summary levy for the 1986/87 marketing year at ECU 5.38/tonne. Report (Annex 10 to the statement of defence).

13. The Hellenic Republic was informed by 15. In my opinion, the central problem in letter of 10 February 1989 of the results of this case is the relatively straightforward one the Commission's calculations concerning of whether the Commission was entitled in the co-responsibility levy. n Those calcula- the particular circumstances to retain the fig- tions had been made on the basis of informa- ure originally submitted as the basis for cal- tion which the Greek authorities had sent to culating the co-responsibility levy, or Eurostat and which had been published by whether it ought to have based that calcula- Eurostat on 12 July 1988. By telex of tion on the figures which it subsequendy 17 April 1989 the Greek authorities received. informed the Commission that they had received new statistical data which indicated that the Commission's calculation of the co-responsibility levy would have to be amended. In their telex the Greek authorities gave a complete set of new figures and used 16. As part of its argument for the retention them as the basis for calculating the of the figures originally submitted, the Com- co-responsibility levy. The Greek authorities mission claims that any change in the calcu- also pointed out that the new figures were to lation made on the basis of the later figures be sent to Eurostat. 1 2 The Commission in respect of total domestic consumption nonetheless chose to base its decision of would lead to the unusual result that too 15 November 1989 on the statistical data high a co-responsibility levy would have which the Greek Government had originally been collected in Greece. That argument submitted to Eurostat. O n 6 December appears to be correct. According to the cal- 1989 Eurostat published the amended statis- culation on which the Commission based its tical data which it had received from the decision, too low a co-responsibility levy Greek Government. was collected in Greece only in respect of 411 000 tonnes of cereals, whereas if the fig- ures given by the Hellenic Republic in its application are used as the basis, an adjust- ment would be necessary in respect of 652 000 tonnes of cereals. 13 Considered in isolation, that adjustment would have the result that excess co-responsibility levy was collected in Greece in respect of 14. The Hellenic Republic claims that the 241 000 tonnes of cereals. The Commission Commission was wrong to base its decision has pointed out that no practical purpose is on the figure of 5 141 000 tonnes for total served by referring to an excess collection of domestic consumption, which was the co-responsibility levy and it therefore takes amount which the Greek Government had the view that the result outlined can be used first submitted to Eurostat. The Greek Gov- to support the view that the most recently ernment takes the view that the Commission submitted figures for total domestic con- ought to have based its decision on the sub- sumption are incorrect. sequent figure of 4 489 000 tonnes.

17. However, I do not believe that the States' own risk (ie, without checking them) Court should accept that argument. It fails to and therefore no significance can in my view take account of the fact that the Hellenic be attached to the fact that publication itself Republic, in the adjusted figures submitted does not occur until later. to the Commission in the telex of 17 April 1989 already referred to and subsequendy in its reply to the questions put by the Court, had amended not only the figures for total domestic consumption, but also several of O n the other hand, the subsequent publica- the other figures used by the Commission in tion cannot be treated as constituting deci- its calculations, and that this had the result sive proof of the accuracy of the figures that exactly the correct amount of either, as contended by the Hellenic Repub- co-responsibility levy had been collected in lic. Greece. The Commission's argument there- fore appears to be based solely on the less than careful drafting of the Hellenic Repub- lic's pleadings, in which the Hellenic Repub- lic does not dispute the Commission's other figures. 20. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the Commission's Summary Report and from its pleadings that the real reason for the Com- mission's refusal to base its decision on the new figures was because it did not believe that those figures were correct. Although the Commission, in its supervisory investiga- 18. As one of its objections to the submis- tions, chose to base itself on information sion made by the Hellenic Republic, the supplied at Member States' own risk, I see Commission claims that it was not under an no reason why the Commission should obligation to base itself on the new figure for uncritically rely on such information even total domestic consumption, particularly in where circumstances suggest that there is view of the fact that Eurostat did not publish cause to doubt its accuracy. the new figure until one month after the Commission had adopted its decision.

(i) it is difficult to imagine that the original figure for total domestic consumption could have changed by as much as 13% two years after the end of the relevant 23. Let me say at the outset that the argu- marketing year; ments put forward by the Commission strike me as being correct. It is, in my opinion, not unreasonable to suggest that the most recent calculations of the Greek Government create the impression that, in the light of the Com- (ii) there had never been any similar mission's supervisory examination, there has amendments by the Greek authorities in been a deliberate attempt to present the fig- respect of previous marketing years ures in such a way as to 'balance the books'. such as 1984/85 and 1985/86;

keting year in comparison with the figure ery of expenditure incurred in connection submitted as a basis one year after expiry of with the storage of tobacco of both the Bur- the marketing year in question. , 5 In addi- ley and oriental types. tion, there is no more detailed information concerning the results of the detailed exami- nation which the Greek authorities claim to have carried out after being informed. 27. The reason given by the Commission for its refusal to allow the EAGGF to finance expenditure relating to the storage of raw 25. It must always be possible to require tobacco was that the raw tobacco in question national authorities, after they have subse- did not correspond to the minimum quality quently altered numerical information of characteristics required at the time of sale decisive importance for the calculation of the into intervention. co-responsibility levy, to provide an ad- equate and plausible explanation why the data originally submitted were incorrect. The Greek Government has in my view failed to 28. Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) N o satisfy that requirement and I would there- 1467/70 of the Council of 20 July 1970 fixing fore propose that the Court should dismiss certain general rules governing intervention this head of claim of the Hellenic Republic. on the market in raw tobacco 17 provides that only tobacco corresponding to the mini- mum quality characteristics to be defined on the basis of classification by variety and Expenditure in respect of the storage of raw quality shall be bought in by the interven- tobacco 16 tion agencies. Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) N o 1727/70 of the Commission of 26. In its decision the Commission disal- 25 August 1970 on intervention procedure lowed a total of DR 1 391 025 367 paid as for raw tobacco 18 enlarges on this by pro- expenditure in respect of the storage of viding that tobacco shall be considered as 6 736 096 tonnes of tobacco, corresponding to the minimum quality char- 6 295 290 tonnes of which were Burley acteristics mentioned if it does not have one tobacco and 440 806 tonnes oriental type or more of the characteristics listed in Annex tobacco. In its reply to the Court's ques- III to the regulation. Those characteristics tions, the Hellenic Republic pointed out that include badly damaged leaves, leaves with it did not recognize any form of financial defects caused during drying and leaves with adjustment on this point and it must for that an unusually high moisture content. reason be assumed that it is claiming recov-

Member States to take the measures neces- oriental type tobacco financial adjustments sary, inter alia, to satisfy themselves that were made only in respect of those portions transactions financed by the EAGGF are which had been checked. actually carried out and are executed cor- recdy. Article 9 of the regulation provides that Member States shall make available to the Commission all information required for the proper working of the E A G G F and shall take all suitable measures to facilitate the 32. The Hellenic Republic has raised a num- supervision which the Commission may ber of objections against the lawfulness of consider it necessary to undertake. the Commission's decision: (a) the inspection of the samples did not satisfy the require- ments with which such examinations must comply; (b) the Commission was not itself entitled to carry out an inspection based on 30. The Commission based its assessment of samples, and; (c) the Commission was not the quality of the Greek tobacco on the entitled in all the circumstances to draw such results of an inspection carried out in far-reaching consequences from the inspec- December 1987. The inspection was made tion. because the services of the EAGGF had received a variety of information which cast doubt on the quality of tobacco stored in Greek intervention depots. The Commission has pointed out that there had been a consid- erable increase in intervention storage of 33. The objection relating to the inspection tobacco and that the prices reached at auc- of samples is in part directed against the tions for tobacco stored in intervention were method by which those samples were taken abnormally low. and partly against the number of samples taken, which the Hellenic Republic argues was insufficient in view of the fact that the samples merely amounted to between 31. The inspections were carried out by 0.013 and 0.033% of individual portions. Commission officials with the assistance of a German expert. The inspection consisted of a physical examination of selected bales of tobacco, and the taking of a number of sam- ples which were then sent for examination to 34. There is no simple way in which to deal the SEITA laboratory at Bergerac (France). with that objection, given that Community law does not contain any rules governing the conduct of such an inspection. The inspection showed that a small portion of the oriental tobacco examined did not sat- isfy the minimum conditions, but that an average 47% of the Burley tobacco examined failed to meet them. It was on this basis that 35. It may presumably be inferred from the the Commission decided to exclude the case-law of the Court that it is possible for entire production of Burley tobacco from the Commission, in the absence of concrete Community financing, while in the case of rules, to apply the methods of inspection

39. If there was an established international practice in this matter, it would have been natural to use this as the basis on which to determine what should be regarded as a valid 37. The Hellenic Republic argues that the and proper method for carrying out a sample Commission failed to follow international inspection. However, neither of the parties practice in this matter and lists certain fea- has been able to establish what any such tures of the sample inspection which it international practice consists of. believes prove this. However, the Hellenic Republic has failed to document, let alone cite, sources for its statement on what consti- tutes international practice in this area. 40. Since there is accordingly no standard by which the Commission's sample inspection 20 — In its judgment in Joined Cases C-161/90 and can be judged, it is necessary to examine C-162/90 Petruzzi and Longo [1991] ECR 1-4845, which whether the Hellenic Republic has otherwise concerned examinations of the organoleptic characteristics of olive oil, the Court ruled as follows: made out a prima facie case that the inspec- '... the very effectiveness of subsequent checks on the orig- inal classification of the oil implies that the Commission tion was not carried out in a reliable manner, must be free to apply any system of analysis which enables it by demonstrating, for example, on the bal- to determine with certainty whether the classification of the oil, at the time when it was submitted for intervention, ance of probabilities that the results of the complied with the designation criteria referred to in the apphcable Community rules. sample inspection were incorrect. ... Community law entitles the Commission, for the pur- pose of verifying, under strict conditions of reliability, the regularity of intervention operations, to carry out an exam- ination which is more than a mere repetition of the analysis made when the oil was submitted for intervention' (para- graphs 17 and 18, my emphasis). 21 — See, inter alia, the judgments in the following cases: Case 49/83 Luxembourg v Commission [1984] ECR 2931, at 41. This it has not done. For example, the paragraphs 29 and 30; Case 347/85 United Kingdom v Commission [1988] ECR 1749, at paragraph 14; Case Hellenic Republic has failed to supply results C-8/88 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR 1-2321; Case C-197/90 Italy v Commission [1992] E C R 1-1, at paragraph of the examination which Community rules 15. · require to be carried out by intervention

bodies in connection with the buying-in of 45. As already mentioned, the Hellenic tobacco for intervention, 22 and has also Republic also called in question the proce- failed to point to other circumstances which dure followed by the Commission during its would suggest that the tobacco in fact satis- inspection. In the first place, it claims that fied the minimum quality characteristics laid the sample inspections ought to have been down. taken by the Hellenic Republic's own experts and subsequently made available to the Commission and, secondly, that a repre- sentative of the Greek authorities attempted 42. The Commission stated in its reply to to take part in the sample inspection but was the Court's questions that it would have prevented from so doing by the Commis- been possible to check a larger number of sion's experts; as a result, the inspection was samples of Burley tobacco before extrapolat- carried out without any participating repre- ing the results to the whole quantity sentative of the Hellenic Republic. inspected. However, the Commission con- tends that the correctness of the results obtained cannot be questioned. 46. Both of these points were only made at a late stage in the proceedings, that is to say, in the course of the reply to the Court's ques- 43. To that I can add two points. In the first tions and during the oral procedure. I believe place, the Commission explained during the that they ought for that reason to be dis- oral proceedings that the sample inspection missed, although I would like to comment had to be carried out in some haste as it had on them briefly. been informed that the Greek intervention agency had already begun to sell off the tobacco. Secondly — and for me this is a key factor in the case — the Commission told the Court that the raw tobacco was sold at 47. The Hellenic Republic relies in this con- 3 % of the market price, a statement which nection on the judgment of the Court in the Hellenic Republic has not disputed. Case C-366/88, 23 from which it concludes Other things being equal, this latter fact indi- that a sample inspection made pursuant to cates that the Greek tobacco was of poor Regulation N o 729/70 must be carried out quality. by a Member State's own authorities. That case, as the Court will be aware, concerned the validity of internal instructions drawn up by the Commission which laid down certain administrative and technical procedures to be 44. I therefore take the view that the Hel- followed by Officials given powers by the lenic Republic has failed to adduce sufficient Commission concerning sampling and analy- evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the reli- sis of products for the purposes of the man- ability of the sample inspection carried out agement and control of the European Agri- by the Commission. cultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund'. One of the reasons given by the Court for its decision annulling those instructions was 22 — The Hellenic Republic limited itself in this respect to reply- ing, in its answer to the Court's questions, that 'the Hel- lenic authorities cannot accept that there may be differences greater than 1.3% going beyond the assessments made by Greece'. 23 — France v Commission [1990] ECR 1-3571.

that the system of inspection established by this issue was not produced until the oral Regulation N o 729/70 implied that the tak- proceedings and was in any event undocu- ing of samples, in so far as that should prove mented. necessary, had to be carried out by the Mem- ber State in question and that the Commis- sion could not therefore confer on itself, by way of such internal instructions, the power 49. O n the basis of the above considerations, to take samples independently of the Mem- it may be concluded that the Commission ber States. was entitled to base its decision relating to the clearance of accounts on the results of the sample inspection which it had carried out. 48. Although I find that judgment slightly surprising on this point, it is unnecessary to embark on an examination of its significance 50. The question which then arises concerns for the present case. This is because it may the financial consequences which the Com- be taken as established that the sample mission may draw from those results. There inspection was carried out without any pro- are two problems in this regard. test from the competent Greek authorities and that it was conducted in close coopera- tion with those authorities. 51. In the first place, the Hellenic Republic argued that the portions from which the samples were taken were not representative. The Commission has argued that the inspec- The argument developed by the Hellenic tion, which was carried out at premises Republic in this regard demonstrates that it belonging to the National Tobacco Board is really contending that the Commission, in (EOK), which is the responsible authority, so far as Burley tobacco was concerned, was was carried out with the agreement of offi- not entitled to apply the results obtained cials of the EOK, that those officials were from samples taken in only three towns to present during all the Commission's inspec- the whole of tobacco production in Greece. tions, and that they at no time raised objec- tions, but on the contrary signed the report drawn up in connection with the sample inspection. That is substantiated by informa- 52. Secondly, the case indirectly raises the tion in the Commission's Summary Report, question of the extent to which the Commis- by information contained in a letter of sion was entitled to make financial adjust- 22 February 1989 from the Commission to ments not only in respect of the average 47% the Permanent Representation of Greece, of Burley tobacco which failed to meet the which was produced during the proceedings minimum quality requirements, but also in and contains an account of the results of the respect of the total quantity of Burley inspection undertaken, and by information tobacco bought in. in the extract produced from the report drawn up by the expert in charge of the sam- ple inspection. The latter report stresses the special cooperation and helpfulness shown 53. These two problems may be considered by the official of the EOK. The contrary as one question concerning the extent to information from the Greek Government on which the Commission may attach wider

54. So far as I can ascertain, the Court of Justice has in its case-law accepted that the 56. The question whether the Commission Commission may justify a refusal to finance was entitled to disallow in full Community a number of uninspected portions by point- financing on the basis of inspections which ing out that certain other portions failed to showed that an average 47% of the tobacco meet the requirements as to quality. Under stored did not satisfy the requirements as to that case-law, it appears to be permissible in quality is a more difficult one. The Commis- such circumstances for the Commission to sion decision reflects the fact that the results base its decision on a finding that the condi- of sample inspections constitute the eviden- tions governing Community financing have tial basis for finding that Member States have not been satisfied in respect of some of the not complied with their obligation to ensure relevant batches, unless the Member State in that expenditure financed by the EAGGF question establishes that the batches which has been paid in accordance with the govern- were not inspected did in fact satisfy the rel- ing rules. This failure is 'sanctioned' by a evant conditions. 24 refusal of finance, which to that extent is separate from the actual consequences of this lack of supervision. If a refusal can be given on this basis, it is not necessary to distin- 55. In the light of that case-law, it is not dif- guish between portions which have been ficult to dismiss the contention that the inspected and those which have not. Commission decision must be unlawful on the ground that the samples taken are not representative. The Commission has pointed out — without it being disputed b y the In my opinion, the case-law of the Court Greek Government — that the samples were provides support for the lawfulness of such a taken in the three main centres of tobacco method of procedure.

there was no acceptable system of control considerable number of defective dossiers. It and that it had not been established that a is for the Member State to cast doubt on the satisfactory control had in fact been carried Commission's statement of reasons, which is out. The Court ruled, inter alia, as follows: inevitably based on suppositions and extrapo- lations, and to suggest that it is not sup- ported by concrete facts with regard to the supervisory situation in question' (paragraph 'In support of its conclusions with regard to 30). the absence of any genuine overall organiza- tion of supervision in the Länder in question, the Commission cites a certain number of individual cases in which it found that the 58. It may also be appropriate to cite two premiums in question had been granted judgments in which the Court considered without justification. In the applicant's view, the validity of Commission decisions disal- these individual cases, on the assumption lowing Community financing in respect of that they be proven, cannot justify the blan- expenditure on aid for the processing of ket refusal by the Commission to allow skimmed milk. In its judgment in Case E A G G F financing, but at the most, a disal- 327/85, 26 the Court ruled that lowance of expenditure in respect of the individual cases in question.

"... In cases where Community rules author- That approach cannot be accepted. In fact ize payment of aid only on condition that those individual cases in which premiums certain formalities relating to proof or super- were wrongly granted merely constitute an vision are observed, aid paid in disregard of additional factor in support of the Commis- that condition is not in accordance with sion's allegation that, in the two aforemen- Community law and the expenditure tioned Länder, an effective set of measures incurred therein may not therefore be for supervising and checking compliance charged to the EAGGF, even if it were estab- with the conditions for the grant of the pre- lished that no substantive irregularity has miums did not in fact exist' (paragraphs been committed' (paragraph 25). 41 and 42).

Regulation N o 1725/79, the Commission to disallow Community financing for the was entitled to disallow payment b y the intervention storage of raw tobacco. E A G G F of all the sums in question. Conse- quently, the Italian Government may not complain that the Commission limited itself 62. For the sake of completion, I would like to carrying out a standard abatement of to conclude by referring to the Hellenic 10%' (paragraph 39). Republic's contention that the Commission decision is invalid on the ground that it is based on misapplication of Article 4 of 60. Member States have an indisputable obli- Council Regulation (EEC) N o 1883/78 of gation to ensure that requirements relating to 2 August 1978 laying down general rules for quality have been complied with when buy- the financing of interventions by the Euro- ing in tobacco for intervention (see, inter pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee alia, Regulation N o 729/70, which imposes a Fund, Guarantee Section. 28 So far as that general obligation on Member States to submission is concerned, I would merely ensure that measures financed by the point out that the Hellenic Republic has E A G G F are implemented in accordance failed to produce any evidence which would with Community rules) and I see no reason persuade me that the Commission did not why the case-law of the Court referred to correctly calculate the financial adjustments. above should not equally apply to compul- I can refer in this regard to an internal sory measures of inspection in the case of memorandum of 17 July 1990, produced by intervention buying-in. the Commission, which contains an account of the principles of calculation applied.