Judgment_paragraph 1. · 140/78

1.In its application the Commission states that the reports sent by the Italian Government as at 31 December 1976, a date close to the date on which the period fixed by the reasoned opinion expired, appeared as follows, the state of those reports on 31 December 1973 being given for the purpose of comparison:^noteI — Regulation No 130/66/EEC — Article 4 — aid amounting to 45000000 units of account (or approximately Lit 28125000000) for structural improvements with respect to olives, olive oil, fruit and vegetables(in millions of lire)| Financial commitments | Sums paid to beneficiaries31. 12. 1973 | 31. 12. 1976 | 31. 12. 1973 | 31. 12. 1976Olives and olive oil | 14810.1 | 13677.1 | 7170.9 | 11066.0Fruit and vegetables | 13585.3 | 24553.7 | 5592.0 | 15279.6Total | 28395.4 | 38230.8 | 12762.9 | 26345.6II — Regulation No 130/66/EEC — Article 12 — aid amounting to 15000000 units of account (or approximately Lit 9375000000) for structural improvements in the production and marketing of raw tobacco(in millions of lire)Financial commitments | Sums paid to beneficiaries31.12. 1973 | 31. 12. 1976 | 31. 12. 1973 | 31. 12. 197611443.9 | 11017.9 | 2187.0 | 9454.7III — Regulation No 159/66/EEC — Article 12 — aid amounting to 87299539 units of account (or approximately Lit 54562000000) for structural improvements in the production and marketing of fruit and vegetables only(in millions of lire)Financial commitments | Sums paid to beneficiaries31. 12. 1973 | 31. 12. 1976 | 31. 12. 1973 | 31. 12. 197639309.0 | 58564.2 | 2757.7 | 22752.9The Commission claims that on the defendant's own admission the obligations laid down by the regulations cited above have not been fulfilled by the defendant. It points out that since the expiry of the extended period granted by the Council more than four years have elapsed as regards the obligations laid down in Regulation No 130/66/EEC (Article 4 (3)) and No 966/71/EEC as well as Regulation No 159/66/EEC; more than seven years have gone by since the period fixed for the obligations laid down by Regulation No 130/66/EEC (Article 12 (3)) and No 490/70/EEC expired.It maintains that the delay incurred in the carrying out of the obligations imposed by the Community has caused the Community measures to lose much of their advantage owing to the devaluation of the lire. It accordingly believes that it is not permissible for it to go no further than ascertaining that the funds allocated have been applied and disbursed, rather it is entitled and under a duty to require that the projects being financed are carried out in full and that they are in operation.The Commission contends that the various grounds relied on by the Italian authorities to justify the considerable delay have no legal foundation, as the Court has repeatedly confirmed in its case-law, the last occasion being in its judgment of 11 April 1978 in Case 100/76 Commission v Italy [1978] ECR 879; it maintains that they lose all credibility anyhow because of the considerable length of the delay.