# C_2016270EN.01006201.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/62

---

Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-287/16)

(2016/C 270/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J. C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016, in so far as it excludes from European Union financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium an amount of EUR 9 601 619,00 (budget item 6701); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016, in so far as it excludes from European Union financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium an amount of EUR 9 601 619,00 (budget item 6701);

| — | in the alternative, partially annul that decision to exclude from European Union financing the amount of EUR 9 601 619 in so far as it includes the sum of EUR 4 106 470,02 from which the EAGF has already benefited; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, partially annul that decision to exclude from European Union financing the amount of EUR 9 601 619 in so far as it includes the sum of EUR 4 106 470,02 from which the EAGF has already benefited;

| — | 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 31(1) and Article 32(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), on the ground that the Commission fails to show that the expenditure effected by the Belgian paying agency is not compatible with EU law and that the failure to recover or the unlawfulness was caused by irregularity or negligence attributable to the Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (the Belgian Intervention and Restitution Board) (BIRB). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 31(1) and Article 32(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), on the ground that the Commission fails to show that the expenditure effected by the Belgian paying agency is not compatible with EU law and that the failure to recover or the unlawfulness was caused by irregularity or negligence attributable to the Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (the Belgian Intervention and Restitution Board) (BIRB).

| 2. | Second plea in law, invoked in the alternative, alleging an infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the principle of proportionality on the ground that the amount excluded does not correspond to the significance of the lack of conformity found and that the financial loss caused to the European Union was not taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, invoked in the alternative, alleging an infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the principle of proportionality on the ground that the amount excluded does not correspond to the significance of the lack of conformity found and that the financial loss caused to the European Union was not taken into account.

---