- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-3/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR) (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — ‘Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CA0003
62012CA0003
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 225/23
(Case C-3/12) (<a id="ntc1-C_2013225EN.01002301-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2013225EN.01002301-E0001"> (<span class="super">1</span>)</a>
(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Scrutiny period’ - Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed - Repayment of financial assistance - Penalties)
2013/C 225/37
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Syndicat OP 84
Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (<a href="./../../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:1989:388:TOC">OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18</a>) — ‘Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny owing to the conduct of the recipient of the financial assistance — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties
Operative part of the judgment
The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94 of 12 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities may, if necessary, carry out the scrutiny operations — notified during the scrutiny period falling between 1 July of one year and 30 June of the following year — beyond the end of that period, without causing the procedure to be marred by an irregularity which the operator under scrutiny may rely on against the decision giving due effects to the results of the scrutiny.
(<a id="ntr1-C_2013225EN.01002301-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2013225EN.01002301-E0001">(<span class="super">1</span>)</a> <a href="./../../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2012:089:TOC">OJ C 89, 24.3.2012</a>.)