# C_2015354EN.01005001.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/50

---

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — France v Commission

(Case T-518/15)

(2015/C 354/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4076 final of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure of the French Republic incurred under the Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps aid and under the cattle-farmers’ agro-environmental premium with regard to Axis 2 of Metropolitan France’s rural development programme for the financial years of 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the amount of the aid paid pursuant to requests made in the years in which it was promoted of 2011, 2012 and 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4076 final of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure of the French Republic incurred under the Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps aid and under the cattle-farmers’ agro-environmental premium with regard to Axis 2 of Metropolitan France’s rural development programme for the financial years of 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the amount of the aid paid pursuant to requests made in the years in which it was promoted of 2011, 2012 and 2013;

| — | in the alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it includes the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it includes the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction;

| — | in the further alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4(1), 10(1) and 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (1) and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) since the Commission found that the applicant had failed to comply with its obligations to check stocking rates on the basis that it had not counted the animals during on-the-spot checks and on the basis that the animals were not made ‘the subject of a plausible calculation’ during on-the-spot checks. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4(1), 10(1) and 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (1) and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) since the Commission found that the applicant had failed to comply with its obligations to check stocking rates on the basis that it had not counted the animals during on-the-spot checks and on the basis that the animals were not made ‘the subject of a plausible calculation’ during on-the-spot checks.

1

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that, in the contested decision, the Commission unlawfully included the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that, in the contested decision, the Commission unlawfully included the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction.

| 3. | Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging failure to take full account of the rules set out in Annex 2 Annex 2 to Document VI/5330/97 (3) and Communication AGRI/60637/2006 (4) since the Commission applied a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging failure to take full account of the rules set out in Annex 2 Annex 2 to Document VI/5330/97 (3) and Communication AGRI/60637/2006 (4) since the Commission applied a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent.

3

4

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 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)  Commission Document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 on guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee.

3

(4)  Commission Communication No AGRI/60637/2006 final on the calculation of the Commission of financial consequences when clearing EAGGF accounts, repeated shortcomings in safeguards.

4

---