Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Austria v Commission

(Case T-501/22)

(2022/C 389/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: J. Schmoll and A. Kögl, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2022) 3543 final and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 10 June 2022, L 157, p. 15, in so far as it excludes from Union financing the expenditure incurred by the Republic of Austria and declared under the EAGF set out in the annex to that decision under budget item 6200, lines 1 to 8, less the amounts listed under budget item 08020601, thus totalling EUR 68 146 449,98;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

1. First plea in law The defendant infringed Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) in so far as it imposed a financial correction by means of the contested implementing decision even though the applicant had applied the reduction coefficient in respect of the allocation of payment entitlements to farmers of alpine pastures in accordance with Article 24(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. (2) The related financial correction was therefore wrongly made.

2. Second plea in law The defendant infringed Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in so far as it imposed a financial correction even though the use of the national reserve for the remedial action taken in respect of farmers of pasture land (Hutweide) and the linear reduction made in order to avoid exceeding the national ceiling were in compliance with EU law. The applicant submits that it was entitled to rely on Article 30(7)(b) or Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to take those actions. The related financial correction was therefore wrongly made.

3. Third plea in law The defendant infringed Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in so far as it also refused financing for such EAGF expenditure effected prior to 26 November 2016 — and thus more than 24 months before the date on which the defendant notified the results of its verifications by letter of 27 November 2018.

4. Fourth plea in law The defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in so far it completely failed to address the applicant’s arguments concerning the classification of alpine pastures based on the alpine pasture laws of the provinces and thus failed to provide sufficient and appropriate reasons for the allegation that the applicant infringed the principle of objectivity and equal treatment in applying the exception provided for in Article 24(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.

(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 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).