# C_2010100EN.01006001.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/60

---

Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-67/10)

2010/C 100/88

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 final of 10 December 2009 on applying financial corrections on the EAGGF Guidance part of the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) for the measure ‘Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products’, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 final of 10 December 2009 on applying financial corrections on the EAGGF Guidance part of the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) for the measure ‘Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products’, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the view of the Kingdom of Spain the decision should be annulled on two grounds:

| | First, erroneous application of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (1) as the irregularities which provide the basis for the financial correction agreed by the Commission did not exist since the Spanish authorities carried out the appropriate controls systematically in order to meet the requirements for support laid down in Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (2) and they did so prior to the granting of the support. In addition, contrary to what was stated by the Commission in the contested decision, the Control Plan adopted by the Spanish authorities following the inspection visit did not seek to remedy a posteriori the fact that controls were not carried out, but sought exclusively to check the efficiency of those controls. |
| --- | --- |

First, erroneous application of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (1) as the irregularities which provide the basis for the financial correction agreed by the Commission did not exist since the Spanish authorities carried out the appropriate controls systematically in order to meet the requirements for support laid down in Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (2) and they did so prior to the granting of the support. In addition, contrary to what was stated by the Commission in the contested decision, the Control Plan adopted by the Spanish authorities following the inspection visit did not seek to remedy a posteriori the fact that controls were not carried out, but sought exclusively to check the efficiency of those controls.

1

2

| | Second, infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with the Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by Commission departments in determining financial corrections under Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (3) since the irregularities identified by the Commission, had they existed, which the Kingdom of Spain denies, would only justify the imposition of a financial correction proportionate to the harm which could have been caused to the Union’s funds and, therefore, less than the 5 % decided upon. |
| --- | --- |

Second, infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with the Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by Commission departments in determining financial corrections under Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (3) since the irregularities identified by the Commission, had they existed, which the Kingdom of Spain denies, would only justify the imposition of a financial correction proportionate to the harm which could have been caused to the Union’s funds and, therefore, less than the 5 % decided upon.

3

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

2

(3)  Document C(2001) 476 of 2 March 2001.

3

---