Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/21

(Joined Cases C-671/11 to C-676/11) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Period under scrutiny’ - Possibility of extending the period under scrutiny and adjusting the temporal parameters - Objective of effective supervision - Legal certainty)

2013/C 225/34

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: 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)

Respondents: Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11)

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 (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18) — ‘Period under scrutiny’ — Option available to Member States of extending the period under scrutiny in the light of the need to protect the financial interests of the European Union — Obligation to limit the scrutiny period — Repayment of part of the aid received

Operative part of the judgment

The second 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, where a Member State makes use of the option of extending the period under scrutiny, that period need not necessarily end during the preceding scrutiny period; rather, it may also end after that period has elapsed. That provision must nonetheless also be interpreted as not conferring upon operators a right which would enable them to oppose inspections other or broader than those envisaged under that provision. It follows that the fact that an inspection relates only to a period ending before the preceding scrutiny period begins cannot, of itself, make that inspection unlawful with regard to the operators scrutinised.

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