Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:206
Date: 2009-06-17
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Concepts: Procedure for clearance of accounts;Conditions subject to which expenditure is borne by the EAGGF
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Portugal

Action brought on 23 February 2007 - Portuguese Republic v Commission (Case T-50/07) Language of the case: Portuguese Parties Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Inez Fernandes and P. Barros da Costa, acting as Agents, and M. Figueiredo, lawyer) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought Annulment of Commission Decision of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), 1 in so far as it applies to Portugal a financial correction of 5% in aid for arable crops, in respect of the additional payment for durum wheat, in the sum of EUR 3 945 827.00, under the system created by Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops; 2 as an ancillary matter, annulment of the decision in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic before 16 December 2003, in the sum of EUR 3 231 650.20; an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant relies on the following grounds: - Infringement of the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 1258/99: 3 in this connection the applicant alleges breach of the duty to state reasons and disregard of essential procedural requirements; - with regard to the late performance of inspections on the spot in the marketing years 2002 and 2003 laid to its charge by the contested decision, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of subsidiarity, breach of the principle of equality of Member States, breach of the principle of proportionality and error as to the factual grounds; - the applicant also argues that the EAGGF has sustained no financial loss; - furthermore, the applicant challenges the Commission's finding as to the allegedly insufficient number of site visits regarding durum wheat in 2002. ____________ 1 - OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96. 2 - OJ 1999 L 160, p. 1. 3 - Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).