# C_2006294EN.01003402.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/34

---

Appeal brought on 13 October 2006 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Belgium v Commission

Belgium

Commission

(Case C-418/06 P)

(2006/C 294/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert, Agent, H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, upholding the action brought by the present appellant, annul Commission Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, upholding the action brought by the present appellant, annul Commission Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004;

1

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, on the basis of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the correction of € 9 322 809 applied by the Commission in Decision 2004/136/EC to € 1 491 085; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, on the basis of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the correction of € 9 322 809 applied by the Commission in Decision 2004/136/EC to € 1 491 085;

| — | in the further alternative, set aside the judgment in Case T-221/04 delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, set aside the judgment in Case T-221/04 delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises four grounds in support of its appeal.

In its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts or, at the very least, erred in the legal appraisal of those facts and the consequences in law to be drawn from them. According to the appellant, the judgment is founded in it entirety on an incorrect factual assumption inasmuch as the Court of First Instance took the view that the Belgian computerised system of graphic encoding of agricultural areas (GIS) constitutes a measurement tool which is closer to reality than the area data declared by farmers themselves, whereas the exact area of an agricultural holding can only be determined, in a formal and indubitable manner, either by measurement carried out by a person properly qualified to do so or by photo interpretation of satellite images taken in the framework of teledetection.

By its second ground of appeal, which consists of five limbs, the appellant alleges breach of Articles 6(7) and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) and of Articles 6 and 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (3) inasmuch as the Court of First Instance, inter alia, wrongly formed the view that the appellant was under an obligation to comply with implied rules necessary for compliance with express rules and inasmuch as it incorrectly considered that the control system introduced by the Belgian authorities would not be effective by reason of the lack of follow-up of the GIS data and because of late encoding of the data. The appellant also submits that, in several respects, the reasoning provided by the Court of First Instance is inadequate and/or contradictory.

2

3

The third ground of appeal is based on an error of law allegedly committed by the Court of First Instance in regard to the application of the principle of proportionality, as the maximum harm suffered by FEOGA was, in the opinion of the appellant, significantly less than the flat-rate correction imposed.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal; the appellant expresses the view that the Court of First Instance wrongly dismissed, as being inadmissible, its request that that Court reduce the flat-rate correction imposed on the basis of its unlimited jurisdiction. The lack of an express provision conferring on the Community Courts unlimited jurisdiction does not, ipso facto, mean that they do not have any such jurisdiction.

ipso facto

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EuropeanAgricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27).

3

---