# C_2013207EN.01004202.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/42

---

Action brought on 7 May 2013 — France v Commission

(Case T-259/13)

2013/C 207/71

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul Commission Decision No 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), to the extent that it excludes expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the aid Indemnités compensatoires des handicaps naturels (ICHN) (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps) (CANH) of the Plan de Développement Rural Hexagonal 2007-2013 for the financial years 2008 and 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul Commission Decision No 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), to the extent that it excludes expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the aid Indemnités compensatoires des handicaps naturels (ICHN) (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps) (CANH) of the Plan de Développement Rural Hexagonal 2007-2013 for the financial years 2008 and 2009;

| — | in the alternative, partially annul Decision 2013/123/EU, first, to the extent that it excludes from European Union financing the part of the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the CANH aid for sheep which is not declared as aid for sheep and, secondly, to the extent that it excludes from European Union financing the part of the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the CANH aid for beef which have been inspected on the spot for the animal identification inspection or the inspection of beef premiums; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, partially annul Decision 2013/123/EU, first, to the extent that it excludes from European Union financing the part of the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the CANH aid for sheep which is not declared as aid for sheep and, secondly, to the extent that it excludes from European Union financing the part of the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the CANH aid for beef which have been inspected on the spot for the animal identification inspection or the inspection of beef premiums;

| — | 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. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1975, (1) as the Commission held that the French Government had failed to fulfil its obligations concerning controls on the ground that it had failed to carry out, with respect to bovine animals and sheep for which a ewe premium had been requested, a count of those animals during on-the-spot controls in respect of the Compensatory Allowances for Natural Handicaps (‘CANH aid’). That plea in law is divided into two parts in the context of which the applicant claims:






  — | that the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot controls in respect of the CANH aid is contrary to the continuity of the criterion of load factors and the principle of equal treatment and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1975, (1) as the Commission held that the French Government had failed to fulfil its obligations concerning controls on the ground that it had failed to carry out, with respect to bovine animals and sheep for which a ewe premium had been requested, a count of those animals during on-the-spot controls in respect of the Compensatory Allowances for Natural Handicaps (‘CANH aid’). That plea in law is divided into two parts in the context of which the applicant claims:

1

—

that the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot controls in respect of the CANH aid is contrary to the continuity of the criterion of load factors and the principle of equal treatment and

| — | that the Commission wrongly interpreted Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1975/2006 by holding that the French control system was inadequate to determine compliance with the loading criterion. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Commission wrongly interpreted Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1975/2006 by holding that the French control system was inadequate to determine compliance with the loading criterion.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1082/2003 (2) and of Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation No 796/2004 (3) concerning controls in the context of the identification of bovine animals and bovine animal premiums, as the Commission held that Articles 10(2) and (4) and 14(2) of Regulation No 1975/2006 impose the obligation to carry out a count of animals during an on-the-spot control in order to determine the criterion of load factors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1082/2003 (2) and of Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation No 796/2004 (3) concerning controls in the context of the identification of bovine animals and bovine animal premiums, as the Commission held that Articles 10(2) and (4) and 14(2) of Regulation No 1975/2006 impose the obligation to carry out a count of animals during an on-the-spot control in order to determine the criterion of load factors.

2

3

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, an unlawful extension by the Commission of the application of the flat rate correction to sheep farms which are not eligible for the ewe premium and to beef farming inspected in the context of the identification of bovine animals or beef premiums. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, an unlawful extension by the Commission of the application of the flat rate correction to sheep farms which are not eligible for the ewe premium and to beef farming inspected in the context of the identification of bovine animals or beef premiums.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 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 2006 L 368, p. 74).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 of 23 June 2003 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the minimum level of controls to be carried out in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 9).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).

3

---