Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:371
Date: 2009-09-30
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;Conditions subject to which expenditure is borne by the EAGGF
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Action brought on 23 February 2007 - Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-55/07) Language of the case: Dutch Parties Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought Annul in part the 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) in so far as it relates to the Netherlands and more particularly with regard to the financial correction applied in it regarding payment requested for non-subsidisable expenditure in the framework of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the year 2002 in the amount of EUR 5.67 million; order the Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of its application the Netherlands alleges, first, breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 2603/1999, 1 by incorrectly interpreting and applying the concept of "multiannual expenditure" within the meaning of that article. Secondly, the applicant complains of breach of Article 44(2) of Regulation 1257/1999, 2 and also the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations through the application of a financial correction of the full amount of the sum concerned, as a consequence of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities, when the Commission had previously approved the declaration under the Guarantee section pursuant to the procedure in the framework of the approval of the Netherlands programme document for rural development 2000-2006. In the alternative, the applicant complains of breach of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 3 and of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/90, 4 by virtue of the incorrect application of those articles in the contested decision, the Community not having suffered any financial damage as a result of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities. In the further alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality because a correction was applied in the full amount of the sum concerned, when those EAGGF monies, as is undisputedly the case, were correctly used by the Netherlands authorities in the sense that the Community did not suffer any financial damage as a result of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities. Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons because a correction was applied in the full amount of the sum concerned without any reasons being given and contrary to the findings of the conciliation body, when those EAGGF monies, as is undisputedly the case, were correctly used by the Netherlands authorities in the sense that the Community did not suffer any financial damage as a result of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities. ____________ 1 - Commission Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999 of 9 December 1999 laying down rules for the transition to the rural development support provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (OJ 1999 L 316, p. 26). 2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the support of rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80). 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). 4 - Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1970 L 94, p. 13).