# C_2015294EN.01004801.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/48

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission

France

Commission

(Case C-373/15 P)

(2015/C 294/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission;

France

Commission

| — | itself adjudicate definitively on the dispute by annulling Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) to the extent to which that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in relation to Axis 2 of the Plan for Rural Development in France in respect of the accounting years 2008 and 2009, or refer the case back to the General Court for it to adjudicate on the dispute; |
| --- | --- |

—

itself adjudicate definitively on the dispute by annulling Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) to the extent to which that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in relation to Axis 2 of the Plan for Rural Development in France in respect of the accounting years 2008 and 2009, or refer the case back to the General Court for it to adjudicate on the dispute;

1

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the French Government raises three grounds of appeal against the judgment under appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in failing to raise, of its own motion, a ground concerning the infringement of an essential procedural requirement, even though the Commission had failed to adopt its contested decision within a reasonable period.

By its second ground of appeal, raised in the alternative, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had not misinterpreted Articles 10 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (2) (‘Regulation No 1975/2006’) by imposing on the French authorities the obligation to count animals during the on-the-spot controls carried out in relation to ICHN (Indemnités compensatoires des handicaps naturels; compensatory allowances for natural handicaps) aid measures.

2

By its third ground of appeal, raised in the further alternative, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the on-the-spot controls carried out in the context of managing the identification of bovine or sheep premiums do not constitute on-the-spot checks in accordance with Article 12 et seq. of Regulation No 1975/2006.

et seq

Consequently, the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it rejects the first plea raised by the French Government in favour of annulment of the Commission’s contested decision.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20.

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

2

---