# C_2015398EN.01006401.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/64

---

Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-556/15)

(2015/C 398/78)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Almeida, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul Commission Decision C(2015)4076 (1), in so far as, under the reason ‘Weaknesses in the LPIS’, it excludes from financing the sum of EUR 13 7 3 89  156,95 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic under the measure Other Direct Area Aid, in the financial years 2010, 2011 and 2012; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul Commission Decision C(2015)4076 (1), in so far as, under the reason ‘Weaknesses in the LPIS’, it excludes from financing the sum of EUR 13 7 3 89  156,95 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic under the measure Other Direct Area Aid, in the financial years 2010, 2011 and 2012;

1

| 2. | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the European 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 the following pleas in law based on the following defects:

| A — | With regard to 2009 and 2010
  Infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 5 TEU, in that, since the calculations and the assumptions are exactly the same as those which had already been accepted by the Commission in previous enquiries, the Commission’s refusal to accept, in a properly reasoned manner, the calculation submitted by the Portuguese authorities, together with the application of a flat-rate correction, despite having found a number of improvements when the Action Plan in the IACS was implemented, constitutes a clear infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

A —

With regard to 2009 and 2010

Infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 5 TEU, in that, since the calculations and the assumptions are exactly the same as those which had already been accepted by the Commission in previous enquiries, the Commission’s refusal to accept, in a properly reasoned manner, the calculation submitted by the Portuguese authorities, together with the application of a flat-rate correction, despite having found a number of improvements when the Action Plan in the IACS was implemented, constitutes a clear infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation.

| B — | With regard to 2011:






  1. | Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation, in that the Commission, in relation to the defects in the functioning of the LPIS/GIS for 2011, undervalued all the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities, in particular, the measures which they adopted, such as the Action Plan, validated by the certification body and implemented with specific reference to 2011, with the consent and knowledge of the Commission. |
| --- | --- | --- |

B —

With regard to 2011:

1.

Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation, in that the Commission, in relation to the defects in the functioning of the LPIS/GIS for 2011, undervalued all the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities, in particular, the measures which they adopted, such as the Action Plan, validated by the certification body and implemented with specific reference to 2011, with the consent and knowledge of the Commission.

| 2. | Infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem, in that the notification under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/06 (2) relating to 2011, states that the subject matter of the enquiry concerns the irregularities found in the LPIS, but the decision is based on the unlawful consolidation of entitlements, a subject which is not mentioned in the letter, as is required under Article 11, and as such, the Portuguese authorities did not have the opportunity to express their views. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem, in that the notification under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/06 (2) relating to 2011, states that the subject matter of the enquiry concerns the irregularities found in the LPIS, but the decision is based on the unlawful consolidation of entitlements, a subject which is not mentioned in the letter, as is required under Article 11, and as such, the Portuguese authorities did not have the opportunity to express their views.

audi alteram partem

2

| 3. | Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/06, in that the decision is not properly reasoned, because its grounds/reasoning are inaccurate, and as such, it infringes Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/06. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/06, in that the decision is not properly reasoned, because its grounds/reasoning are inaccurate, and as such, it infringes Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/06.

| C — | Increase/Flat-rate correction rates — For 2009 to 2011
  Infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and of the principle of proportionality, and the punitive nature of AGRI/61 495/2002- REV1, in that the measures adopted (see decisions) are not appropriate or necessary for the aim pursued and go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose, since the Portuguese authorities make the calculation in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines and after the Commission decides to apply a flat-rate correction. |
| --- | --- |

C —

Increase/Flat-rate correction rates — For 2009 to 2011

Infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and of the principle of proportionality, and the punitive nature of AGRI/61 495/2002- REV1, in that the measures adopted (see decisions) are not appropriate or necessary for the aim pursued and go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose, since the Portuguese authorities make the calculation in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines and after the Commission decides to apply a flat-rate correction.

3

---

(1)  Decision of 22 June 2015 excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/06 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

3

---