Protokół zmian strony SprawaETSC20996
Dodane:
CategoryPrawoEuropejskieOrzecznictwo
Usunięte:
Dodane:
CategoryOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoEuropejskieOrzecznictwo
Usunięte:
Dodane:
CategoryOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoEuropejskieOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoCelne
Usunięte:
Dodane:
CategoryOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoEuropejskie CategoryPrawoCelne
Usunięte:
[[CategoryOrzecznictwo Orzecznictwo]] [[CategoryPrawoEuropejskie Prawo europejskie]] [[CategoryPrawoCelne Prawo celne]]
Dodane:
**43** That provision, which constitutes a specific expression in the agricultural area of the obligations imposed on Member States by Article 5 of the EC Treaty (obecnie {{pu przepis="art. 10 TWE"}}), defines the principles according to which the Community and the Member States must ensure the implementation of Community decisions on agricultural intervention financed by the EAGGF and combat fraud and irregularities in relation to those operations (see Joined Cases 146/81, 192/81 and 193/81 BayWa and Others v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1982] ECR 1503, paragraph 13). It imposes on the Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures (see Case C-8/88 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR I-2321, paragraphs 16 and 17).
**58** By its third plea in law, the United Kingdom Government claims that the Commission did not put forward sufficient reasons to support its conclusion that connected offers either allowed the manipulation by tenderers of the intervention procedures or led to a higher level of interventions by the national authorities. Such inadequate reasoning is, it argues, contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty (obecnie {{pu przepis="art. 253 TWE"}}).
**58** By its third plea in law, the United Kingdom Government claims that the Commission did not put forward sufficient reasons to support its conclusion that connected offers either allowed the manipulation by tenderers of the intervention procedures or led to a higher level of interventions by the national authorities. Such inadequate reasoning is, it argues, contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty (obecnie {{pu przepis="art. 253 TWE"}}).
Usunięte:
**58** By its third plea in law, the United Kingdom Government claims that the Commission did not put forward sufficient reasons to support its conclusion that connected offers either allowed the manipulation by tenderers of the intervention procedures or led to a higher level of interventions by the national authorities. Such inadequate reasoning is, it argues, contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Dodane:
**1** By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 June 1996, the United Kingdom brought an action under the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (obecnie {{pu przepis="art. 230 TWE"}}) for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996 L 117, p. 19, `the contested decision'), in so far as it refused to charge to the EAGGF the sum of £3 356 000 in respect of expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom for intervention purchases of beef for 1992.
