# C_2009180EN.01005402.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/54

---

Action brought on 20 May 2009 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-197/09)

2009/C 180/101

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, of the State Legal Service)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), (notified under document number C(2009) 1945, (1) in so far as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), (notified under document number C(2009) 1945, (1) in so far as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia;

1

| — | an order that the Commission should pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission should pay the costs;

| — | an order that the Commission should reimburse the costs incurred by the Republic of Slovenia in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission should reimburse the costs incurred by the Republic of Slovenia in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission excluded certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia from Community financing for the financial years 2005 and 2006, on account of deficiencies in key controls and of incorrect control approach and tools, and also ordered a flat-rate financial correction of 5 % for immediate payment, for which it relied on the audit of national control carried out by its services in that Member State in March 2005.

In support of its claims the applicant argues, in particular, that the Commission:

| — | on account of a mistaken evaluation of the facts of the case, incorrectly applied Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2) or Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, (3) for it carried out the audit too late; it chose for it an atypical region for which conspicuously small fields were checked; in that audit it took no account of International Standard 530 on auditing and without cause it censured the applicant for using that standard as a yardstick; |
| --- | --- |

—

on account of a mistaken evaluation of the facts of the case, incorrectly applied Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2) or Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, (3) for it carried out the audit too late; it chose for it an atypical region for which conspicuously small fields were checked; in that audit it took no account of International Standard 530 on auditing and without cause it censured the applicant for using that standard as a yardstick;

2

3

| — | contravened the principle of the prohibition of unequal treatment of Member States, because it carried out its audit of national checks in the other Member States on a substantially greater, and therefore more representative, sample; |
| --- | --- |

—

contravened the principle of the prohibition of unequal treatment of Member States, because it carried out its audit of national checks in the other Member States on a substantially greater, and therefore more representative, sample;

| — | applied a measure, namely the 5 % financial correction, which, on account of the limited risk to the Fund, considering the amount of the resources assigned, is plainly disproportionate to the gravity and extent of the infringements found to exist; |
| --- | --- |

—

applied a measure, namely the 5 % financial correction, which, on account of the limited risk to the Fund, considering the amount of the resources assigned, is plainly disproportionate to the gravity and extent of the infringements found to exist;

| — | acted contrary to the principle of good faith and fairness, for its services did not challenge the correctness of the instructions providing for the use of that yardstick, or, until autumn 2005, draw the problems to the applicant’s attention. |
| --- | --- |

—

acted contrary to the principle of good faith and fairness, for its services did not challenge the correctness of the instructions providing for the use of that yardstick, or, until autumn 2005, draw the problems to the applicant’s attention.

---

(1)  OJ L 75, 21.3.2009, p. 15.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).

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 18, p. 18).

3

---