1 . Since no penalty is imposed for failure by the Commission to comply with the time-limit provided for by Article 5(2)(b ) of Regulation No 729/70 for the adoption of a decision on the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF, it must be regarded as a merely formal limit, save where the interests of a Member State are affected ( see the judgment in Case 349/85 Denmark v Commission [1988] ECR 169 ). It follows that where it is not possible to reach a final decision on the financing of certain expenditure the Commission is entitled to express reservations in its decision on the clearance of accounts . It is immaterial in that respect that the decision contains reservations of a general nature and not specific reservations relating to each inspection which was carried out, since the Member States are closely associated with the procedure for clearing the accounts and are fully informed of any inspections .
Those reservations, which simply clarify the effects of the decision, may appear in the preamble alone, since the preamble is an integral part of the decision and may thus help to specify its objective and scope .
2 . When the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF on the ground that it was caused by a national measure incompatible with Community law and the amount disallowed has been calculated by examining the manner in which the national measures in question affected EAGGF expenditure, it is for the Member State contesting the disallowance to prove that EAGGF expenditure was not increased by those measures or that it was increased by an amount less than that calculated by the Commission ( see the judgment in Case 347/85 United Kingdom v Commission [1988] ECR 1749 ).
3 . The Court has consistently held that the concept of force majeure requires the non-performance of the act in question to be due to circumstances beyond the control of the person claiming force majeure which are abnormal and unforeseeable and whose consequences could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care .
4 . The Commission cannot charge to the EAGGF expenditure not incurred in accordance with Community law; that precludes application of the de minimis rule, that is to say the rule that a practice is to be regarded as contrary to the common market only if it has an appreciable effect, which may apply in other sectors of Community law .
In Case C-335/87,
Hellenic Republic, represented by Eleni Marinou, lawyer, counsel to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ilias Laios, Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Agriculture, and Meletis Tsotsanis, lawyer in the Ministry of Agriculture, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by Xenophon Yataganas, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, then by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and then by Théofanis Christoforou, a member of its Legal Department, assisted by Michaïl Vilaras, an assessor at the Greek Council of State on secondment to the Commission' s Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 87/469/EEC of 18 August 1987 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section, expenditure for 1985 ( Official Journal 1987 L 262, p . 35 ),
THE COURT
composed of : O . Due, President, Sir Gordon Slynn and C . N . Kakouris, ( Presidents of Chambers ), G . F . Mancini, T . F . O' Higgins, G . C . Rodríguez Iglesias and M . Díez de Velasco, Judges,
( The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced .)
hereby :
( 1 ) Dismisses the application;
( 2 ) Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
