# C_2018005EN.01002102.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/21

---

Appeal brought on 9 October 2017 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-143/15 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-588/17 P)

(2018/C 005/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold its appeal and set aside, in part, the judgment of the General Court delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-143/15, Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (EU:T:2017:534), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain 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) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33), corresponding to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castille and León, as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22; and |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold its appeal and set aside, in part, the judgment of the General Court delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-143/15, Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (EU:T:2017:534), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain 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) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33), corresponding to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castille and León, as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22; and

Kingdom of Spain

European Commission

as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22

| — | annul, in the new judgment to be delivered, the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 January 2015, in so far it relates to the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain 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) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33), corresponding to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León, as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in the new judgment to be delivered, the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 January 2015, in so far it relates to the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain 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) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33), corresponding to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León, as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22.

‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León, as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Manifest distortion of the facts

  There is a manifest distortion of the facts since (i) as the Kingdom of Spain submitted in its application and proved, an agreement was reached before the Conciliation Body concerning the base on which the financial correction should be applied and (ii) the Kingdom of Spain demonstrated how forage areas with no animals could be included in the scope of the measures at issue and, therefore, could be affected by the corrections imposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Manifest distortion of the facts

Manifest distortion of the facts

There is a manifest distortion of the facts since (i) as the Kingdom of Spain submitted in its application and proved, an agreement was reached before the Conciliation Body concerning the base on which the financial correction should be applied and (ii) the Kingdom of Spain demonstrated how forage areas with no animals could be included in the scope of the measures at issue and, therefore, could be affected by the corrections imposed by the Commission.

| 2. | Error of law concerning the extent of the value of the agreements of the Conciliation Body, which entails a manifest breach of the principle of sound administration and sincere cooperation

  The General Court erred in law in that it disregarded the value and the effectiveness of partial agreements reached between the Commission and a Member State before the Conciliation Body. In addition, that error of law entails a manifest breach of the principle of sound administration and sincere cooperation since the General Court’s reasoning makes it legitimate for an authority to disregard, unilaterally, and without giving any explanation, the agreements which it reaches with a Member State in a conciliation procedure which was legally designed precisely to enable the Commission and the Member States to reach an agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Error of law concerning the extent of the value of the agreements of the Conciliation Body, which entails a manifest breach of the principle of sound administration and sincere cooperation

Error of law concerning the extent of the value of the agreements of the Conciliation Body, which entails a manifest breach of the principle of sound administration and sincere cooperation

The General Court erred in law in that it disregarded the value and the effectiveness of partial agreements reached between the Commission and a Member State before the Conciliation Body. In addition, that error of law entails a manifest breach of the principle of sound administration and sincere cooperation since the General Court’s reasoning makes it legitimate for an authority to disregard, unilaterally, and without giving any explanation, the agreements which it reaches with a Member State in a conciliation procedure which was legally designed precisely to enable the Commission and the Member States to reach an agreement.

| 3. | Error of law in that the General Court failed to state adequate reasons for the judgment under appeal

  The General Court did not rule on point III.2.3 of the application, in which the appellant argued that the Commission had infringed Article 31(2) of Regulation 1290/2005, (1) as well as the principle of proportionality, since the base which the Commission took into account in order to apply the financial correction included beneficiaries of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘handicaps’ which did not contain forage areas. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Error of law in that the General Court failed to state adequate reasons for the judgment under appeal

Error of law in that the General Court failed to state adequate reasons for the judgment under appeal

The General Court did not rule on point III.2.3 of the application, in which the appellant argued that the Commission had infringed Article 31(2) of Regulation 1290/2005, (1) as well as the principle of proportionality, since the base which the Commission took into account in order to apply the financial correction included beneficiaries of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘handicaps’ which did not contain forage areas.

1

| 4. | Error of law concerning the scope of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the judicial review of the principle of proportionality, and breach of the principle of sound administration of justice

  The General Court did not carry out the judicial review incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the principle of proportionality, and which consists in determining whether the State fulfilled the obligation to show that the Commission erred as regards the financial consequences to be attached to that infringement. Nor did it examine the information adduced by the Kingdom of Spain demonstrating the Commission’s error.
  Moreover, the General Court’s reasoning entails a breach of the principle of the sound administration of justice since it disregards the fact that the Kingdom of Spain determined the number of farms subject to the obligation to count livestock, and since it deviates from the subject-matter of the dispute as defined by the parties. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Error of law concerning the scope of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the judicial review of the principle of proportionality, and breach of the principle of sound administration of justice

Error of law concerning the scope of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the judicial review of the principle of proportionality, and breach of the principle of sound administration of justice

The General Court did not carry out the judicial review incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the principle of proportionality, and which consists in determining whether the State fulfilled the obligation to show that the Commission erred as regards the financial consequences to be attached to that infringement. Nor did it examine the information adduced by the Kingdom of Spain demonstrating the Commission’s error.

Moreover, the General Court’s reasoning entails a breach of the principle of the sound administration of justice since it disregards the fact that the Kingdom of Spain determined the number of farms subject to the obligation to count livestock, and since it deviates from the subject-matter of the dispute as defined by the parties.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (no longer in force) (OJ 2005, L 209, p. 1).

1

---