Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:828
Date: 2018-11-22
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Lithuania

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission (Case T-508/15) Language of the case: Lithuanian Parties Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, M. Palionis and A. Petrauskaitė, Agent r States under the European Agr icultural Guarantee F und (EAGF) and under the European Agricultur al Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania and relates to the Scheme for early retirement from agricultural commodities production (budget item: 6711);order the European Commission to pay the costs.Pleas in law and main argumentsIn support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law:By adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) o f Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in conjunction with the principle of proportion ality, because:(1) Without taking into account the nature of the infringement and the financial dam age caused to the European Union, the Commission applied a flat-rate correction, although the information presented following the ex-post verification of all applications, carried out by Lithuania in an appropriate and reasonable manner, made it possible to determine with precision the financial damage actually caused to the European Union. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania asserts that the ex-post verifications carried out by the Lithuanian authorities are an appropriate means of determining the actual damage to the funds, because:– the criteria chosen for the verifications are consistent with the concept of agricultural commodities production; – the Commission wrongly linked the concept of agricultural commodities production with the concept of semi-subsistence farms;– the Commis sion failed to take into account the objectives of the Republic of Lithuania and the measures which were set out clea rly in the rural development programme documents.(2) In any event, the Commission misapplied the excessive 5% financial correc tion, since the application of that correction is provided for solely when the risk of loss to the EU budget is significant, whereas the verifications carried out and the informat ion presented by the Republic of Lithuania proved that only a small financial risk to the EU budget could have arisen. ____________ 1 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/9 8, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).