- 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: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Syndicat OP 84 v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0003
62012CN0003
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
24.3.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 89/12
(Case C-3/12)
2012/C 89/19
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Syndicat OP 84
Respondent: Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR
Questions referred
1.Must the ‘scrutiny period’ from 1 July of one year to 30 June of the following year, as referred to in Article 2(4) of Council Regulation 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 EAGGF, be understood as the period during which the authorities responsible for the scrutiny must inform the producer organisation of the planned inspection, and commence and complete the scrutiny procedure in its entirety on-site and on paper and communicate the results of that scrutiny, or must it be understood as the period during which only some of those procedural steps have to be carried out?
2.Where the conduct or the shortcomings of the producer organisation make it impossible to carry out effectively an inspection initiated during one scrutiny period, may the authorities — despite the absence of express provision to that effect in [Regulation No 4045/89] — carry out the scrutiny procedure during the subsequent scrutiny period, without causing the procedure to be vitiated by a defect which the organisation under scrutiny could rely on against the decision setting out the inferences to be drawn from the findings of that inspection?
3.If the previous question falls to be answered in the negative, may the authorities, where the conduct or the shortcomings of the producer organisation make an effective scrutiny impossible, require repayment of the financial assistance received? Does such a measure constitute one of the penalties for which provision may be made pursuant to Article 6 of [Regulation No 4045/89]?
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).