137Endesa contends that the Decision represents an unacceptable refusal on the part of the Commission to accept its obligations under Community law, which requires it to exercise its exclusive competences without sheltering behind presumptions as to the supposed conformity of audited accounts. This presumption, which is an ad hoc creation of the Commission, is not supported by any of the provisions of the Regulation, which not only avoids any reference to whether or not the accounts are audited, but also contains a specific and unconditional obligation on the Commission to determine the actual turnover of the undertakings concerned in every case. The reference to audited accounts appears only in the Commission Notice, which cannot in any event alter the content or scope of the Regulation. The slightest conflict between the two is subject to the hierarchy of norms (Case C-266/90 Soba [1992] ECR I-287; Case C-322/93 P Peugeot v Commission [1994] ECR I-2727; and Case T-380/94 AIUFFASS and AKT v Commission [1996] ECR II-2169). In the present case, however, the Notice places audited accounts and other definitive accounts, that is to say, accounts relating to a full tax year which has ended, on the same level.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.