REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC)
No 4045/89 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
(COM(2001) 663 – C5‑0647/2001 – 2001/0264(CNS))

6 September 2002 - *

Committee on Budgetary Control
Rapporteur: José Paulo Martins Casaca

Procedure : 2001/0264(CNS)

Document stages in plenary

Document selected :

A5-0275/2002

Texts tabled :

A5-0275/2002

Debates :

Votes :

Texts adopted :

P5_TA(2002)0433

PROCEDURAL PAGE
DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
OPINION OF Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market

PROCEDURAL PAGE

By letter of 6 December 2002 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 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 (COM(2001) 663 - 2001/0264(CNS)).

At the sitting of 10 December 2001 the President of Parliament announced that she had referred this proposal to the Committee on Budgetary Control as the committee responsible and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for its opinion (C5‑0647/2001).

The Committee on Budgetary Control had appointed José Paulo Martins Casaca rapporteur at its meeting of 4 December 2001.

At its meeting of 22 May 2002 it decided to request the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the proposal's legal basis under Rule 63(2).

It considered the Commission proposal and the draft report at its meetings of 22 May, 9 July and 2 September 2002.

At its meeting of 2 September 2002 it adopted the draft legislative resolution unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Diemut R. Theato, chairman; Herbert Bösch, 1^st vice-chairman; Paulo Casaca, 2^nd vice-chairman and rapporteur; María Antonia Avilés Perea, Juan José Bayona de Perogordo, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Helmut Kuhne, Brigitte Langenhagen, Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (for Eluned Morgan), Jonas Sjöstedt (for Michel-Ange Scarbonchi), Ole Sørensen, Bart Staes, Gabriele Stauner, Rijk van Dam (for Jeffrey William Titford) and Michiel van Hulten.The opinions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the legal basis are attached.

The report was tabled on 6 September 2002.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 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 (COM(2001) 663 – C5‑0647/2001 – 2001/0264(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2001) 663[1]),

– having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 37 of the EC Treaty (C5‑0647/2001),

- having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the proposed legal basis,

– having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A5‑0275/2002),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty.;

3. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4. Asks to be consulted again if the Council intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,	Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article *280* thereof,
Justification The question of whether budgetary control in agriculture is to be regarded as an agricultural matter or a matter of budgetary control is crucial. The case law of the Court of Justice does not allow a dual legal basis where the two articles concerned lay down different procedures for adopting the act, which means that a choice must be made between Article 37 and Article 280. From Parliament's point of view it would be extremely important for Article 280 to be fixed as the legal basis, since this article grants it more power. In terms of budgetary control, it also raises the crucial question of the specific importance attached to protecting the financial interests of the Community.
Amendment 2 Recital 2
Provision should be made for cases where Member States carry out joint actions involving mutual assistance between Member States.	Provision should be made for cases where Member States carry out joint actions involving mutual assistance between Member States. A reduction in the number of scrutinies, reflecting the selection of undertakings on the basis of risk analysis techniques and enhanced mutual assistance, must not give rise to a deterioration in the quality of the scrutinies.
Justification Even if fewer scrutinies are carried out, they must still serve to prevent and uncover cases of fraud.
Amendment 3 ARTICLE 1, POINT- 1 (new) Article 1, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89)
	- *1. Article 1(1) is replaced by the following:* '1. This Regulation relates to scrutiny of the commercial documents of those entities receiving or making payments relating directly or indirectly to the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, or their representatives, hereinafter called 'undertakings', in order to ascertain whether transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF have actually been carried out and have been executed correctly.

(Same text as Regulation 4045/89 with the insertion of 'or their representatives')

Justification

In some cases, Community aid for farmers is allocated to producers' associations or other intermediaries which in turn channel them to producers. The legal framework of the Regulation should therefore be clarified so as to include scrutiny of entities administering the aid allocated.

Amendment 4
Article 1, paragraph -1 (new)
Article 1, paragraph 5 (new) (Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89)

Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 is amended as follows:

The following paragraph 5 is inserted in Article 1:

Scrutinies of rural redevelopment measures and projects not explicitly excluded from the scope of such scrutinies, pursuant to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2311/2000, shall pay particular attention to the special conditions governing the implementation of such measures and projects.

Justification

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2311/2000 lays down a list of measures to which the system of scrutiny pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 does not apply. For example, these include, under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the EAGGF, the chapters dealing with early retirement, less-favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions, agri-environmental measures and forestry. All other rural development measures are not excluded and require particular attention, for example in view of their multiannual nature.

Amendment 5
ARTICLE 1, POINT - 1A (new)
Article 2, paragraph 1a (new) (Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89)

- 1a. In Article 2, the following new paragraph 1a is added:

'1a. Each year, the Member States shall draw up a list of the names of undertakings and respective receipts or payments under the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, which they shall forward to the Commission. The number of scrutinies to be carried out shall be determined on the basis of those lists, in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Justification

This provision flows directly from the eighth indent of paragraph 58 of Parliament's resolution on the 2000 discharge (McCartin report).

Amendment 6
ARTICLE 1, POINT 1A (new)
Article 3, paragraph 1, indent 3a (new) (Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89)

1a. The following new indent is added to Article 3(1):

' - Checks, in relation to bookkeeping, on records of financial movements showing, at the time of the scrutiny, that the documents held by the intervention body as justification for the payment of aid to the beneficiary are accurate.'

Justification

The problem of cross-checks should not be seen as being restricted to links between economic agents, i.e. consistency between the transactions for which subsidies were paid to the beneficiary and which must be recorded by third parties in the transactions in question. It is also necessary to ascertain whether the documents are consistent with the undertaking’s remaining records and accounts.

Amendment 7
Article 1, paragraph 3a (new)
Article 21, paragraph 3 (Regulation (EEC) No 4085/89)

[Wording of Article 21(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3094/94:

In the case of scrutinies taking place under Article 7, officials of the requesting Member State may be present, with the agreement of the requested Member State, at the scrutiny in the requested Member State and have access to the same premises and the same documents as the officials of that Member State. Officials of the requesting Member State present at scrutinies in the requested Member State must at all times be able to furnish proof of their official capacity. The scrutinies shall at all times be carried out by officials of the requested Member State.]

Article 21(3) is amended as follows:

In the case of scrutinies taking place under Article 7, officials of the requesting Member State may, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, be present at the scrutiny in the requested Member State and have access to the same premises and the same documents as the officials of that Member State. The requested Member State shall inform the requesting Member State in good time that the scrutiny is to be carried out. Officials of the requesting Member State present at scrutinies in the requested Member State must at all times be able to furnish proof of their official capacity. The scrutinies shall at all times be carried out by officials of the requested Member State.

Justification

In its assessment report (COM (1999) 208 final) on the experience gained with the regulation in force, the Commission points out that one of the main problems in connection with implementation of the regulation concerned mutual assistance. One particular shortcoming was singled out, namely the refusal on principle by some Member States to allow officials of other Member States to be present during scrutinies carried out on their national territory, pursuant to Article 21(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 (as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3094/94). This amendment takes account of that problem.

Amendment 8
ARTICLE 1, POINT 3A, SUBPARAGRAPH A (new)
Article 11, paragraph 4a (new) (Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89)

3a. Article 11 is amended as follows:

(a) the following paragraph 4a is inserted:

'4a. The Commission shall carry out an audit each year, for each Member State, on one of the scrutiny reports drawn up by that Member State, if possible relating to the same measure, in order to ascertain that the scrutiny procedures adopted are properly harmonised.

The results of this audit shall be included in the report referred to in Article 9.'

Justification

As laid down in Article 280 of the Treaty, it is essential to guarantee an equivalent level of protection for the Community's financial interests in all the Member States. This requires on-going action by the Commission to assess the control processes carried out in each Member State.

Amendment 9
ARTICLE 1, POINT 3A, SUBPARAGRAPH B (new)
Article 11, paragraph 4b (new) (Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89)

b) In Article 11 the following paragraph 4b is added:

'4b. The Commission shall take particular account of the need to scrutinise undertakings and/or transactions which, owing to their volume and the number of Member States involved, are clearly supranational and European in nature. For this reason, the Commission shall carry out an audit each year, on its own initiative, on undertakings and/or transactions of this kind, selected in accordance with objective criteria pertaining to risk, size and significance.

This obligation shall in no way detract from the role to be played by the Member States in the scrutiny tasks laid down in this Regulation.'

Justification

Aligning the Commission proposal with the transnational and European nature of fraud and irregularities is essentially an intergovernmental matter. We consider such an alignment to be necessary. The proposal that at least an audit should be carried out directly by the Commission services is a first step in affirming the existence of a genuine Community strategy to prevent transnational fraud and irregularities.

[1] OJ C051, 26 February 2002, p. 366

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Regulation No 4045/89 is a highly important regulation, being the main piece of legislation governing monitoring of the EAGGF Guarantee Section following the introduction of the Integrated Administration and Control System.

The Commission is proposing amendments to this regulation aimed at reducing the minimum number of compulsory scrutinies.

In the case of ‘a proposal for joint action involving extensive mutual assistance’ by two or more Member States, this minimum number of scrutinies may be cut even further.

Both in its explanatory memorandum and in the letters sent to the Committee on Budgetary Control by the Commissioner, Mr Fischler, the Commission has presented this reduction in the minimum number of scrutinies as a means of making them more effective, helping to ensure that scrutinies are completed in time and allowing the development of new approaches and more in‑depth examinations.

The number of scrutinies is indeed a crude measure of the quality of monitoring, and we have no reason to doubt the Commission’s argument that a reduction in the number of scrutinies may lead to an improvement in their quality. We are therefore proposing to approve the amendments to the regulation proposed by the Commission without any changes.

Nevertheless, we take the view that the amendment of the regulation provides a convenient opportunity to modify other points which are in need of revision, even if this revision does not significantly change the reasoning behind the regulation.

One point in particular flows directly from Parliament’s resolution on the 2000 discharge and concerns the need to adopt the principles of transparency in relation to the funding of undertakings by the EAGGF Guarantee Section. There is no reason why this funding, in contrast to other forms of funding such as that linked to the scientific area, should not be in the public domain, and there is also no reason why the identity of undertakings and amount of funding received by them from the Community budget should be concealed from European citizens.

The present legislation gives the Commission little or no responsibility as regards verifying the scrutinies carried out by the Member States and performing direct auditing work where funding is supranational and European in nature. The Commission confines itself to encouraging intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms between two or more Member States.

The Commission must play a more active role in this area, and it is therefore proposed that it should audit at least one of the scrutinies carried out by each Member State and should perform a direct audit of funding which is quite clearly European in nature.

It is also proposed once again to change the legal basis of rules on monitoring agricultural spending, which should be Article 280 rather than Article 37, thereby giving the protection of the Community’s financial interests the importance it deserves.

Other more minor points concern wider definitions of the undertakings to be scrutinised and the cross-checks to be carried out.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

21 June 2002

for the Committee on Budgetary Control

on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 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

(COM(2001) 663 – C5‑0647/01 – 2001/0264 (CNS))

Draftsman: Agnes Schierhuber

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development appointed Agnes Schierhuber draftsman at its meeting of 4 December 2001.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 28 May and 19 June 2002.

At the last of those meetings it adopted the following conclusions unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Joseph Daul (chairman), Albert Jan Maat (vice-chairman), Agnes Schierhuber (draftsman), Gordon J. Adam, Carlos Bautista Ojeda, Arlindo Cunha, Christel Fiebiger, Francesco Fiori, Christos Folias, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Georges Garot, Lutz Goepel, Willi Görlach, Liam Hyland, María Izquierdo Rojo, Elisabeth Jeggle, Salvador Jové Peres, Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert, Heinz Kindermann, Dimitrios Koulourianos, Astrid Lulling (for Neil Parish), Véronique Mathieu, Hans-Peter Mayer (for Michl Ebner), Xaver Mayer, Karl Erik Olsson, Mikko Pesälä, Encarnación Redondo Jiménez and Robert William Sturdy.

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The EAGGF Guarantee Section is used to finance expenditure, such as direct payments, intervention payments and export refunds, under the CMOs in the various production sectors. Appropriations are also made available to co-finance accompanying measures and other rural development measures outside Objective 1.

Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89, amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94, which the Commission is now proposing to amend once again, concerns the a posteriori scrutiny of the commercial documents of undertakings which have received an agricultural subsidy from the Community budget and, more specifically, the EAGGF Guarantee Section. On the basis of this regulation, the Member States take the measures required to prevent and deal with irregularities and fraud and to recover sums lost as a result of irregularities. The Commission sees Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 as a powerful instrument forming the cornerstone of the horizontal anti-fraud strategy in the agricultural sphere.

The criteria governing the selection of the undertakings to be scrutinised were amended in 1994, by means of Regulation (EC) No 3094/94, in order to take account of the use of risk analysis techniques and are to be amended further by the proposal under consideration here. For example, the volume of payments received is to be introduced as a selection criterion and due account is to be taken of the annual inflation rate, since 1994, of roughly 4%. The documents scrutinised, which include electronic data, must provide all the information required concerning an undertaking's production and the nature of the products. Direct payments to producers and payments covered by the integrated administration and control system are excluded from scrutiny. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2311/2000 the Commission keeps a list of measures to which the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 on the a posteriori scrutiny of EAGGF Guarantee Section measures do not apply, such as accompanying measures in the sphere of rural development.

As far as mutual assistance is concerned, the Commission is proposing a further simplification of the reporting requirement and measures to enhance the provision of mutual assistance with a view to reducing the minimum number of scrutinies by up to 25%. This should make for greater flexibility in the choice of undertakings to be scrutinised. At all events, steps must be taken to ensure that the selection of undertakings on the basis of risk analysis does not lead to a reduction in the quality of the scrutinies. Checks carried out on rural development measures or projects should focus in particular on the special conditions governing their implementation.

Under this regulation, the Community's financial contribution, for example to the cost of training and further training for the staff concerned or the procurement of office automation equipment, is to be discontinued.

In overall terms, the proposal is welcome. Your draftsman's amendments concern the fixing of a threshold below which no scrutinies are normally carried out, a provision which is no longer necessary, improvements in mutual assistance and the special conditions governing the implementation of rural development measures.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]

Amendments by Parliament

Amendment 1
Recital 2

Provision should be made for cases where Member States carry out joint actions involving mutual assistance between Member States.

Provision should be made for cases where Member States carry out joint actions involving mutual assistance between Member States. A reduction in the number of scrutinies, reflecting the selection of undertakings on the basis of risk analysis techniques and enhanced mutual assistance, must not give rise to a deterioration in the quality of the scrutinies.

Justification

Even if fewer scrutinies are carried out, they must still serve to prevent and uncover cases of fraud.

Amendment 2
Article 1, paragraph -1 (new)
Article 1, paragraph 5 (new) (Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89)

Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 is amended as follows:

The following paragraph 5 is inserted in Article 1:

Justification

Amendment 3
Article 1, paragraph 3a (new)
Article 21, paragraph 3 (Regulation (EEC) No 4085/89)

[Wording of Article 21(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3094/94:

Article 21(3) is amended as follows:

Justification

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

1999

[1] OJ C ...

OPINION OF Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market

The Chairman

Mrs Diemut R. Theato

Chairwoman

Committee on Budgetary Control

BRUSSELS

Subject: Legal basis of the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 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 - COM(2001) 663 - C5-0647/2001 - 0264/2001(CNS)

Dear Madam President,

By letter of 28 May 2002 you requested the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, under Rule 63(2), to consider the issue of the appropriate legal basis for the above proposal. You did so because, while the Commission had based its proposal on Article 37 of the EC Treaty, you took the view that Article 280 of the EC Treaty is the appropriate legal basis.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market considered the above question at its meetings of 20 June and 10 July 2002.

The proposal aims at amending Regulation 4045/89.[1] The latter Regulation is the framework for scrutiny of transactions financed by the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (hereafter EAGGF). Commercial documents of undertakings received or making payments are thereby under a system of surveillance. For this purpose, the undertakings are selected on the basis of the nature of the transactions carried out on their responsibility.[2] A minimum number of inspections of commercial documents is provided for in Regulation 4045/89.

Over the years, but in particular during the modification process to redefine the rural development measures excluded (Regulation 2311/2000/EC),[3] several Member States have raised the issue of the minimum number of scrutinies required by the legislation. For some Member States the minimum number poses problems in completing scrutinies in time and handicaps the development of new approaches and more in-depth examinations. The minimum number of scrutinies is determined as 50% of the number of undertakings receiving over 100 000€ in aid.[4] This figure has not changed since 1994. Inflation percentages 1994-2001 are calculated at around 4% cumulating to some 35%. For this purpose, the draft Council Regulation sets the calculation parameter for the minimum number at 150 000€ in order to avoid having to change the Regulation again within a few years.

The draft Council Regulation thus modifies the rules for the selection of undertakings to be scrutinised as laid down in Article 2 of Regulation 4045/89 so as to take account of developments in the use of risk analysis techniques in other control measures, in order to take account of inflation, and to give Member States greater flexibility in the selection of undertakings.[5] Accordingly, the draft Council Regulation reduces the minimum number of scrutinies and includes an addition to its Article 7, which would decrease the minimum number by a maximum of 25%.

The draft Council Regulation also provides for cases where Member States carry out actions involving mutual assistance between Member States [Article 1(2) of the draft Council Regulation].[6] The reporting requirement in respect of mutual assistance requests (Article 7) is simplified (quarterly reporting on a summary basis).

Article 37 of the EC Treaty concerns agricultural policy. This article must be interpreted in light of article 32 of the EC Treaty and annex I (former annex II) to the EC Treaty. Article 32(1) of the EC Treaty defines "agricultural products" as including the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products.

The ECJ stated that "article 37 is the appropriate legal basis for any legislation concerning the production and marketing of agricultural products listed in annex I to the Treaty which contributes to the achievement of one or more of the objectives of of the common agricultural policy set out in article 33 of the Treaty"[7]^.

Pursuant to Article 280 of the EC Treaty (which has replaced Article 209a), the Community, in the same way as the Member States, is required to adopt measures which will enable the Community’s financial interests to be protected in an effective and equivalent fashion in all the Member States. Paragraph 4 of that provision lays down the provisions which will allow such an objective to be achieved.

It is clear from settled case law of the ECJ that the choice of the legal basis does not depend on the discretion of the Community legislature but must be based on objective elements which are amenable to judicial control. Among these elements are, in particular, the aim and the content of the legal act.[8]

It is also necessary to determine whether the measures in question relate principally to a particular field of action, having only incidental effects on other policies, or whether both aspects are equally essential.

If the first hypothesis is correct, recourse to a single legal basis is sufficient;[9] if the second is correct, it is insufficient[10] and the institution is required to adopt the measure on the basis of both of the provisions from which its competence derives.[11] However, no such dual basis is possible where the procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other.[12] This hypothesis is therefore to be discarded in the present case since Article 37 of the EC Treaty provides for Parliament consultation, whereas Article 280 of the EC Treaty provides for co-decision.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market considered the following elements at its meetings of 20 June and 10 July 2002, for the purpose of determining the appropriate legal basis of the draft Regulation:

Regulation 4045/89 that the draft Regulation aims at amending was adopted under Article 37 of the EC Treaty.

The first recital of Regulation 4045/89 refers to Article 8 of Council Regulation 729/70,[13] pursuant to which the Member States take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, to prevent and deal with irregularities and to recover sums lost as a result of irregularities or negligence.

The second recital of Regulation 4045/89 states that "scrutiny of the commercial documents of undertakings received or making payments can be a very effective means of surveillance of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF".

In light of the abovementioned considerations, and of the opinion of the Legal Service, the adequate legal basis of the draft Council Regulation is Article 37 of the EC Treaty.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market thus decided unanimously[14] that Article 37 of the EC Treaty is the appropriate legal basis.

Yours sincerely,
(s) Giuseppe Gargani

[1] Council Regulation (EEC) 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 L 388, 30.12.1989, p. 18.
[2] Sixth recital of Regulation 4049/89.
[3] Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/2000 of 18 October 2000 establishing the list of measures to which Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 does not apply and repealing Decision 96/284/EC, OJ L 265, 19.10.2000 p. 10.
[4] Article 2(2) of Regulation 4045/89.
[5] First recital of the draft Council Regulation.
[6] Second recital of the draft Council Regulation.
[7] Case 68/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 855 and Case 131/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 905.
[8] Case C-42/97, Parliament v Council, para. 36.
[9] Case C-70/88 Parliament v Council [1991] ECR I-4529, paragraph 17, and Case C-271/94 Parliament v Council [1996] ECR I-1689, paragraphs 32 and 33.
[10] Case 242/87 Commission v Council [1989] ECR 1425, paragraphs 33 to 37, and Case C-360/93 Parliament v Council [1996] ECR I-1195, paragraph 30.
[11] Case 165/87 Commission v Council [1988] ECR 5545, paragraphs 6 to 13.
[12] Case C-300/89 Commission v Council [1991] ECR I-2867, paragraphs 17 to 21.
[13] Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13.
[14] At its meeting of 10 July 2002, the following were present for the vote: Giuseppe Gargani (président), Willi Rothley (vice-président), Brian Crowley (rapporteur), Bert Doorn, Francesco Fiori (for Klaus-Heiner Lehne), Janelly Fourtou, Fiorella Ghilardotti, Malcolm Harbour, Heidi Anneli Hautala, Kurt Lechner, Toine Manders, Angelika Niebler, Marianne L.P. Thyssen, Joachim Wuermeling and Stefano Zappalà.

Legal notice - Privacy policy