# C_2022380EN.01002001.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/20

---

Action brought on 2 August 2022 –Sweden v Commission

(Case T-485/22)

(2022/C 380/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: H. Shev och F.-L. Göransson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 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), (1) in so far as the decision entails for Sweden a flat-rate correction of five percent, corresponding to a sum of EUR 13 856 996,64 in respect of aid paid to Sweden for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 claim years, and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 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), (1) in so far as the decision entails for Sweden a flat-rate correction of five percent, corresponding to a sum of EUR 13 856 996,64 in respect of aid paid to Sweden for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 claim years, and,

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, according to the applicant, has not complied with its duty to state reasons since the Commission’s reasoning when it made the decision or the deficiencies that are alleged against Sweden are not clear. There is therefore insufficient information to determine whether the contested decision is well founded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, according to the applicant, has not complied with its duty to state reasons since the Commission’s reasoning when it made the decision or the deficiencies that are alleged against Sweden are not clear. There is therefore insufficient information to determine whether the contested decision is well founded.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52 of Regulation 1306/2013 (2) and Articles 28-29 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (3) owing to the Commission having erred in its assessment when it found that there were systemic deficiencies in the implementation of cross-checks, which affects the quality of LPIS updates, which is considered to constitute a weakness in the key controls. That is the case because, (1), the quality of the update of the LPIS can only be assessed in relation to the land parcel database as a whole, (2), the Commission’s choice of land parcels for investigation was too limited to be able to demonstrate a systemic deficiency, and, (3), the Commission’s finding as to the number of deficient land parcels and the error rate — which was apparently the basis for the Commission’s assessment that there is a systemic deficiency in the LPIS update — is not correct. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52 of Regulation 1306/2013 (2) and Articles 28-29 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (3) owing to the Commission having erred in its assessment when it found that there were systemic deficiencies in the implementation of cross-checks, which affects the quality of LPIS updates, which is considered to constitute a weakness in the key controls. That is the case because, (1), the quality of the update of the LPIS can only be assessed in relation to the land parcel database as a whole, (2), the Commission’s choice of land parcels for investigation was too limited to be able to demonstrate a systemic deficiency, and, (3), the Commission’s finding as to the number of deficient land parcels and the error rate — which was apparently the basis for the Commission’s assessment that there is a systemic deficiency in the LPIS update — is not correct.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation 1306/2013 and the Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections in the framework of the conformity and financial clearance of accounts procedures (C(2015)3675 of 8 June 2015). It is clear from those guidelines and the principle of proportionality, which is also expressed in Article 52(2) of Regulation 1306/2013, that the flat-rate correction imposed is not justified or proportionate. Neither the extent of the alleged infringement, with regard to its nature and scope, nor the financial damage that the infringement might have caused the European Union can justify a flat-rate correction of 5 % calculated on the basis of all the pastureland that was subject to image updating over the 2016-2018 period, corresponding to the sum of EUR 13 856 996,64. The flat-rate correction at issue in the contested decision is therefore not compatible with the aforementioned provisions or the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation 1306/2013 and the Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections in the framework of the conformity and financial clearance of accounts procedures (C(2015)3675 of 8 June 2015). It is clear from those guidelines and the principle of proportionality, which is also expressed in Article 52(2) of Regulation 1306/2013, that the flat-rate correction imposed is not justified or proportionate. Neither the extent of the alleged infringement, with regard to its nature and scope, nor the financial damage that the infringement might have caused the European Union can justify a flat-rate correction of 5 % calculated on the basis of all the pastureland that was subject to image updating over the 2016-2018 period, corresponding to the sum of EUR 13 856 996,64. The flat-rate correction at issue in the contested decision is therefore not compatible with the aforementioned provisions or the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 157, p. 15.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3)  OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69.

---