EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/40

Action brought on 9 July 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-358/13)

2013/C 252/68

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Savatorelli, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision 2013/209/EU of 26 April 2013 on ‘the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2012 financial year’, notified under the reference C(2013) 2444 on 29 April 2013 by Letter SG-Greffe (2013) D/5879, which was received by Italy’s Permanent Representation to the European Union on 29 April 2013, in so far as that decision finds the amount of EUR 5 006 487,10, relating to the Basilicata Region, to be a ‘non-reusable amount’ and thus subtracts that amount from the Basilicata Rural Development Plan’s EAFRD spending limit, with the result that it is impossible for that amount to be used within that limit, essentially leading to the decommitment of the amount in question;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Italian Government contests Commission Implementing Decision 2013/209/EU of 26 April 2013 on ‘the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2012 financial year’, notified under document C(2013) 2444 on 29 April 2013, in so far as that decision finds that the amount of EUR 5 006 487,10, relating to the Basilicata Region, is a ‘non-reusable amount’ and accordingly subtracts that amount from the Basilicata Rural Development Plan (RDP)’s EAFRD spending limit, with the result that it is impossible for that amount to be used within that limit, essentially leading to the decommitment of the amount in question.

In that regard, the applicant claims that the adjustment arises from the Commission staff’s assumption that some projects which were paid for in the final quarter of 2011 could not be included in the quarterly declaration of expenditure as they did not comply with the RDP then in force.

The Commission’s position as finally implemented in the contested implementing decision is, according to the applicant, flawed in several respects.

— First, there are legitimate doubts as to whether it was correct to bring the reduction — made pursuant to Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1) and categorised as a “non-reusable amount” — within the scope of the decision on the clearance of the accounts, as any amount which has been reduced or suspended must be disregarded by that decision, as established by Article 29(5) of that regulation. One of the ways in which the reduction in question is incorrect is in terms of its quantification;

— Secondly, the decision is also vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons, given that an amount corresponding to a quarter’s expenditure has been reduced or suspended by the Commission for the purposes of Article 29(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005;