CJEC, July 11, 1984, No 130-83

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

1. By an application lodged at the Court registry on 8 July 1983 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by not complying within the prescribed period with Commission decision 82-401-EEC of 5 May 1982 concerning aid granted in Sicily in the wine and fruit and vegetable sectors (Official Journal 1982, L 173, p. 20), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC treaty.

2. In that decision the Commission declared incompatible with the common market certain subsidies and aid granted by the Sicilian region under regional law No 16-81 for the production of wine and of fruit and vegetables. By virtue of Article 2 of the decision, the Italian Republic was to take the measures necessary to comply with the decision within a period of one month from notification thereof. It is to be noted that no action was brought against the decision.

3. In its defence the Italian Government states that it has made several approaches to the Sicilian regional authorities with a view to inducing them to repeal the provisions referred to in the Commission decision but that its efforts have so far not led to the formal repeal of those provisions. It states however that the aid, for which provision was made according to varying procedures for the 1980 and 1981 seasons, was not in fact paid. Since accounts for the years in question have been closed, payment is no longer possible, with the result that the Commission's decision has become devoid of purpose.

4. As regards Article 13 of law No 16-81, supplementing Article 7 of regional law No 47-80, on the granting of aid to the Istituto Regionale Della Vite E Del Vino (regional wine and wine-growing board), the Italian Government draws attention to a misunderstanding in the Commission's decision. According to the fifth and ninth recitals in the preamble to the decision, and the second Paragraph of Article 1 thereof, the aid in question was intended to encourage '' the collection of grapes at wine cooperatives ''. However, it is apparent from consideration of the above-mentioned legislation that the aid in question was granted to the Istituto Regionale in order to enable it to carry out the tasks entrusted to it, that is to say its general activities in favour of wine-growing, and the quantity of grapes collected is merely a yardstick for calculating the amount of the subsidy.

5. For its part, the Commission considers that, even if the aid was not in fact paid, the risk nevertheless remains that it may be paid subsequently and it is therefore desirable for the provisions of the regional legislation referred to in the decision to be formally repealed.

6. As regards the subsidies granted to the Istituto Regionale Della Vite E Del Vino, the Commission submits that the Italian Government's argument is intended to challenge the decision of 5 May 1982, which it did not contest within the prescribed period and which has therefore become final. Hence the Commission considers that argument to be inadmissible in these proceedings.

7. Having regard to the arguments put forward by the parties, it must be stated that, since the Commission adopted a formal decision in respect of the aid in question, the Member State concerned was under an obligation to give effect to it, within the prescribed period, by taking the measures necessary to ensure the formal repeal of the provisions found by the Commission to be contrary to the requirements of Article 92 of the EEC treaty.

8. As regards the Italian Government's contention that the scope of the provisions on the aid granted to the Istituto Regionale Della Vite E Del Vino was misunderstood, the Court is unable, in the present proceedings, to consider whether or not it is well founded, since the disputed provisions of the decision of 5 May 1982 were not challenged within the prescribed period. If there was any doubt regarding the scope of that particular point of the decision of 5 May 1982, it was for the Italian authorities to deal with it when implementing the decision, if necessary by seeking the agreement of the Commission. However, such a contention cannot in any event be accepted so as to release the Italian Republic from its obligation to give effect to that part also of the Commission's decision, in accordance with the spirit of Article 5 of the EEC treaty.

9. For those reasons, it must be held that by failing to comply with Commission decision 82-401-EEC of 5 May 1982 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC treaty.

Costs

10. Under Article 69 (2) of the rules of procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the defendant has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

THE COURT

Hereby rules:

1. By not complying within the prescribed period with Commission decision 82-401-EEC of 5 May 1982 concerning aid granted in Sicily in the wine and fruit and vegetable sectors (Official Journal 1982, L 173, p. 20), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC treaty.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.