Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:37
Date: 2008-02-14
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF);Oils and fats
Concepts: Procedure for clearance of accounts;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Spain

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 1 July 2004 by Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-266/04) An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance on 1 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, with an address for service at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais, Luxembourg, represented by Fernando Díez Moreno, lawyer, acting as Agent. The applicant claims that the Court should: Annul the Commission decision of 29 April 2004 as regards, in respect of Spain, the exclusion from financial compensation for withdrawal of fruit and vegetables (EUR 5 253 604.00); and the exclusion in respect of the arable crops sector and cattle premiums, with the exception of the sum relating to the 2000/2001 marketing year in La Rioja, in the arable crops sector (EUR 1 659 053.00), and Order the Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments The contested decision, in so far as it affects the applicant, involves four exclusions:(a) financial compensation for withdrawals of fruit and vegetables;(b) aid for the processing of lemons; (c) supplies of foodstuffs deriving from intervention stocks, intended for distribution to persons most in need; and (d) arable crops and cattle premiums. The present action relates only to the exclusion from financial compensation relating to withdrawals of fruit and vegetables (EUR 5 253 601, because of allegedly defective controls in Murcia and Valencia), and to the exclusion applied in relation to arable crops and cattle premiums, with the exception of the sum corresponding to the marketing year 2000/2001 in La Rioja in respect of arable crops, as a result of which the sum of which the exclusion is considered inappropriate in that sector is EUR 1 659 053. In support of its claims, Spain relies on the following legal grounds: Financial compensation for withdrawals of fruit and vegetables Under this heading, Spain states that, although the Spanish authorities, as a result of a misinterpretation, did not inspect 100 % percent of the products withdrawn, they adopted the measures needed to adjust the procedure immediately after being advised of the error by the European Court of Auditors. In the applicant's view, it is not logical to penalise Spain for a misinterpretation of the legislation, which was rectified as soon as notice was given, in view of the fact, first, that the Spanish authorities were diligent in rectifying the problem detected by the Court of Auditors and, second, on-the-spot controls were carried out on a large percentage of products, in addition to the regulation checks. Arable crops and cattle premiums Under this heading, Spain states that, pursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/99, in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) 729/70, all Basque Country expenditure relating to the 1998/1999 marketing year and the 1999/2000 marketing year should have been excluded from the financial correction, the payments in relation thereto having been made prior to 31 January 1999 and 31 January 2000 respectively. The same applies to La Rioja. Secondly, it is not readily apparent that, with regard to cattle premiums, the requirement of notification under Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1663/95 was fulfilled. According to the Kingdom of Spain, the payments in respect of cattle premiums for the years 1998,1999 and 2000 had already been audited and dealt with under the 2000/2011 investigation. As regards the 1998,1999 and 2000 applications for the Basque Country, and the 1998 and 2000 applications for la Rioja, the Commission applied a financial correction without taking account of the fact that, when carrying out the abovementioned investigation, its staff had concluded that no financial correction was necessary as regards the abovementioned applications. Consequently, the aim now pursued by the 2000/2011 investigation is to reopen a case which had already been closed, with a different team from the EAGGF dealing with the same applications for 1998 to 2000, which have already been analysed, and even dealing with the same aspect of the application of penalties, and reaching different conclusions regarding the scope of the exclusion from financing. ____________