Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/9

(Case C-670/11) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Articles 4 and 5 - Administrative penalty - Administrative measure - Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 - Aid for the private storage of concentrated grape must - Community origin - Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 - Long-term storage contract - Article 2(2) - Article 17(1)(b) - Reduction of the amount of aid in relation to the seriousness of the breach committed)

2013/C 38/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant: Société Vinifrance SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(2), and 17 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must (OJ 1983 L 116, p. 77), the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1) and the provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Community aid for the storage of concentrated grape must in return for the conclusion of a storage contract with the national intervention body — Acquisition by the producer of grape must from a fictitious or non-existent company — Concept of ‘owner’ within the meaning of the regulation — Regulation instituting a system of EU aid but without providing a scheme of measures and sanctions in the event of a failure to comply with its provisions — Determination of that scheme in the event of injury to the financial interests of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the non-existence of the company alleged to have sold grape musts means that the Community origin of the grape musts cannot be established, the producer who has acquired those grape musts from that company cannot, on any view, benefit from a storage aid under Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2253/88 of 19 July 1988.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings:

Article 17(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2646/1999 of 15 December 1999, cannot constitute a legal basis for the purposes of punishing a breach by the producer of the obligation laid down by Regulation No 822/87, as amended by Regulation No 2253/88, according to which the grape musts which can confer an entitlement to storage aid must be of Community origin;

in the absence, both in sectoral rules and in national rules, of a provision providing for the application of a penalty, the irregularities at issue cannot be subject to a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, and

the national authorities are required to apply an administrative measure, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which requires repayment of all of the aid unduly paid, in so far as it is established, which is a matter for the national court to determine, that the two storage contracts at issue in the main proceedings each related, partially or totally, to the grape musts which cannot be regarded as being of Community origin and which were mixed, in the course of concentration and storage, with grape musts of Community origin.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.