# C_2014388EN.01002401.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/24

---

Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case T-675/14)

2014/C 388/30

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Abogado del Estado)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 9 July 2014 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Financial Perspectives and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as they concern the Kingdom of Spain; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 9 July 2014 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Financial Perspectives and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as they concern the Kingdom of Spain; 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 support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | By the first plea, it is alleged that the imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 2 7 31  208,07 and the method of calculation used were contrary to Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), to the guidelines set out in Commission document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 (Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section), and to Commission document AGRI/2005/64043 (Commission Communication on how the Commission intends in the context of the EAGGF-Guarantee clearance procedure to handle shortcomings in the context of cross-compliance control systems implemented by Member States) in so far as it is inappropriate to apply a flat-rate assessment, since the applicant had provided a specific evaluation of the actual risks for the fund. The implementing measures adopted by the Commission were not only incorrect, but also disproportionate and unjustified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By the first plea, it is alleged that the imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 2 7 31  208,07 and the method of calculation used were contrary to Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), to the guidelines set out in Commission document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 (Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section), and to Commission document AGRI/2005/64043 (Commission Communication on how the Commission intends in the context of the EAGGF-Guarantee clearance procedure to handle shortcomings in the context of cross-compliance control systems implemented by Member States) in so far as it is inappropriate to apply a flat-rate assessment, since the applicant had provided a specific evaluation of the actual risks for the fund. The implementing measures adopted by the Commission were not only incorrect, but also disproportionate and unjustified.

| 2. | By the second plea, it is alleged that the addition of a specific correction in the amount of EUR 1 91  873,55 to the general flat-rate correction of 2 %, and the method of calculation, are contrary to Article 31(2) of the Regulation No 1290/2005 and to the Commission documents on the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections, because it is not appropriate to use two methods of calculation at the same time for the same infringement. To proceed in that way is not only legally incoherent but also disproportionate and unjustified. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By the second plea, it is alleged that the addition of a specific correction in the amount of EUR 1 91  873,55 to the general flat-rate correction of 2 %, and the method of calculation, are contrary to Article 31(2) of the Regulation No 1290/2005 and to the Commission documents on the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections, because it is not appropriate to use two methods of calculation at the same time for the same infringement. To proceed in that way is not only legally incoherent but also disproportionate and unjustified.

| 3. | By the third plea in law, it is alleged that the correction imposed for the 2010 application year, the 2011 financial year, infringes Article 31(4) of Regulation No 1290/2005; that it implies failure to observe the principle of sincere cooperation and infringes the rights of the defence, in so far as the defendant has unduly extended the financial correction to cover a period subsequent to the 24 months preceding the Communication, even though the shortcomings had already been rectified. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By the third plea in law, it is alleged that the correction imposed for the 2010 application year, the 2011 financial year, infringes Article 31(4) of Regulation No 1290/2005; that it implies failure to observe the principle of sincere cooperation and infringes the rights of the defence, in so far as the defendant has unduly extended the financial correction to cover a period subsequent to the 24 months preceding the Communication, even though the shortcomings had already been rectified.

---