3.As to the nature of the charges Denkavit observes that it is clear from the case-law of the Court that administrative action by the State, which is intended to maintain a system of inspections in the general interest, cannot be considered a service rendered to an individual of such a nature as to justify the imposition of a pecuniary charge. Such charges should on the contrary be borne by the public.Denkavit stresses that the aid to skimmed-milk powder is granted solely in the general interest. It is not intended to confer an advantage on the industry concerned but to ensure the proper functioning of the common organization of the market (see judgments of the Court of 14 March 1973 in Case 57/72 Westzucker [Wo] ECR 321 at paragraph 20; and of 21 February 1974 in Case 162/73 Birra Dreher [1974] ECR 201 at paragraph 8). The grant of direct aid is intended to avoid the stocking of skimmed-milk powder.If the aid itself is granted in the general interest that applies a fortiori to the regular inspections carried out within the framework of the aid system. The object of the inspections is precisely to ensure that the skimmed-milk powder is actually used for animal feedingstuffs and to prevent the same product from benefiting from the aid several times (see third recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1725/79). As far as Denkavit is concerned it thus constitutes an inspection for fiscal purposes carried out solely in the interest of the Community.In conclusion Denkavit proposes that the Court should give the following reply to the question raised by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfun:“The fees which the Federal Republic of Germany demands from persons applying for aid, to cover the costs relating to the packaging and transport of samples and the costs relating to inspections of products carried out in pursuance of Article 10 of Regulation No 1725/79, are incompatible with Regulation No 1725/79 and with Regulations Nos 804/68 and 986/68.”The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany argues that neither the system of aid in question nor the system of inspections accompanying it is intended to serve exclusively the public interest. The public interest lies only in the creation of certain incentives to undertakings. Each private undertaking then decides if it is in its own interest to benefit from those incentives. Moreover the aid granted represents an economic advantage for manufacturers of compound animal feedingstuffs because it enables them to offer compound animal feedingstuffs of high quality at low prices and thus to obtain a market advantage.As a result of those considerations the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concludes that previous decisions of the Court relating to administrative action by the State which seeks to enforce a control measure prescribed solely in the public interest and which thus does not constitute a service rendered to an individual cannot be transposed to the present case. The controls involved in those cases were imposed solely on grounds of health policy in the context of the importation of goods coming from another Member State. The interests which were at stake in those cases were thus different from those at stake in this case where it is only by means of the inspections in question that it is possible to prove entitlement to the aid.In conclusion the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that an affirmative reply should be given to the question raised.The Commission maintains that the case-law of the Court allows no assumption to be made that Member States are only empowered to charge fees for costs of inspections where the State has performed a service in return. It claims that there is only one precedent, namely the judgment of the Court of 25 January 1977 in Case 46/76 Baubuis, mentioned above, which however involved Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Treaty. In the present case it is not the principle of free movement which is at stake but the imposition of charges relating to inspections carried out in the framework of the common organizations of the markets.In the same way the judgment in Bussane, mentioned above, gives no ground for concluding that the charging of a fee for an inspection always implies that those inspections represent a service rendered by the State to the individual concerned.The Commission explains that every recipient of aid must furnish proof of his entitlement to such aid. The recipient only discharges that burden of proof when the results of the inspections carried out at his premises, which are recorded in the analysis and inspection reports, have given rise to no observations (Article 9 (2) (b)). Article 9 (2) sets out very clearly that the aid is to be paid only if the applicant supplies on the one hand satisfactory evidence of processing during the month for which the aid is applied for and on the other hand supplies the analysis repon and inspection repon corresponding to the amounts processed during the month preceding the month in respect of which the aid is applied for. The inspection authority, by verifying the quality of the product, therefore relieves the applicant of a good deal of his obligation to furnish proof. In the absence of any inspections by the administration it would be for the applicant to supply in even case proof of quality, proof which he might only be able to supply by arranging for regular private analyses and inspections to be carried out, which would be a costly matter.In conclusion the Commission proposes that the Court should give the following reply to the question raised:“The charging by the Federal Republic of Germany of fees corresponding to the costs actually borne by the administration in respect of inspections of products carried out in pursuance of Article 10 of Commission Regulation No 1725/79 of 26 July 1979 (Official Journal L 199, p. 1) is compatible with Community law.”
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.