Case T-113/08: Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2008-02-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, Spain, action for annulment (EU), aid system, olive oil, regulation of agricultural production

C 107/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commis-
sion decision contained in debit note No 3240912189 of
to Commission Decision
17 December 2007 relating
C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007, cancelling,
following an
OLAF report, the assistance granted by the European Social
Fund to finance, by way of a global subsidy, a pilot project
carried out by the applicant (1)
the annulment of which is
sought by the applicant in Case T-444/07 CPME v Commis-
sion (2).

— Annul Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December
2007 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guar-
antee Fund (EAGGF), to the extent it relates to the subject
matter of this action, and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

In support of its application, the applicant submits, principally,
that the Commission has erred in law and exceeded its powers
in so far as the contested debit note was not addressed to the
actual debtor. By relying on infringement of Article 135 of the
Financial Regulation No 1605/2002 (3), it submits that the debit
note should have been addressed to the body which played a
financially responsible role in the project concerned, which actu-
ally received the grant from the European Social Fund.

Moreover, the applicant submits that the fact that the debit note
was addressed to it damages its image and its credibility with
respect to its financial partners given the general interest task it
performs.

(1) Commission Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999, amended

by Decision No C(2001) 2144 of 18 September 2001.

(2) OJ 2008 C 37, p. 29.
(3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Spain v
Commission

(Case T-113/08)

(2008/C 107/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The effect of the contested decision is to exclude from Com-
munity financing certain corrective measures, among which, for
the purposes of this action, are included those concerning aid to
olive oil production in the seasons 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and
1999/2001, to a total sum of EUR 183 965 185,54; and direct
aid payments, aid for arable crop areas, applied for in the years
2003 and 2004, to a total sum of EUR 16 591 528,35.

In particular,
this action relates to the corrective financial
measures adopted in relation to aid to olive oil production,
excluding the proportion relating to the season 1999/2000 in
Andalusia, and that adopted in relation to aid to arable crops
areas applied for in the years 2003 and 2004.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— As regards aid to olive oil production:

— Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 (1),
in that the financial corrective measures were not based
on observations made by the Commission on verifica-
tions made as a result of the investigation, but on extra-
polations from observations relating to other investiga-
tions.

— Infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation
No 729/70 (2)
and of Article 2 of Regulation
No 1258/1999 (3), since the contested decision applies
them in inappropriate circumstances, given that
the
theoretical irregularities relied on by the Commission to
justify the financial corrective measures decided upon
are insufficient.

— Failure to observe the period of 24 months prior to
written communication of the results of the verifications,
laid down in Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99.

— As regards the aid to arable crops areas:

— Infringement of the procedure laid down in Article 8(1)
of Regulation No 1663/95, since there was no statement
of the reasons justifying the financial corrective measures
in the document in which the results of the verifications
were notified to the Member State, and alternatively,
failure to observe the period of 24 months laid down in
Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999.

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/41

— Infringement of Article 2 of Regulation No 1258/1999,
since the contested decision is applied in inappropriate
circumstances, given that the irregularities assessed by
the Commission are insufficient.

— Infringement of the provisions of Article 2 of that regu-
lation, and of the Guidelines for the calculation of the
financial consequences on preparing the Decision on the
clearance of accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts
of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94, 28.4.1970,
p. 13).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999,
p. 103).

Appeal brought on 6 March 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07, Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case T-114/08 P)

(2008/C 107/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by G.

Primarily:

— Grant the claims set out in the action at first instance fully

and unconditionally;

— order the respondent to make reimbursement to the appel-
lant of all the costs, disbursement and fees incurred by him
in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the
instant appeal proceedings.

In the alternative:

— Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, with a

different composition, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

1. Absolute failure to state reasons, given the failure to dispel
the confusion between the concept of damage and the
concept of the occurrence of an event giving rise to the kind
of damage referred to in the second paragraph of Article 288
(formerly 215) EC.

2. Infringement of Article 288 EC,

the first paragraph of
Article 46 of the Statue of the Court of Justice, Article 90 of
the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Commu-
nities (‘the Staff Regulations’), the principles of legal certainty,
the right to judicial protection and the right to a fair trial.

3. Incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of
the concept of starting date or dies a quo for the purpose of
determining a reasonable period within which to bring an
action under Article 288 EC.

4. Absolute failure to state grounds by reason,

inter alia, of a
total failure to make preliminary inquiries, and infringement
of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and of the relevant
general principles of law in the analysis of the date from
which the limitation period for bringing an action under
Article 288 EC begins to run.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

5. Absolute failure to state grounds in relation to the appellant's
alleged delay in bringing an action under Article 288 EC.

Form of order sought by the appellant

In any event:

— Annul the judgment under appeal fully and unconditionally;

— declare that the action at first instance was brought by the

appellant intra dies;

— declare that the action at first instance was wholly admis-

sible.

6. Infringement of Articles 235 and 288 EC relating to the
jurisdiction of the Community court in actions for compen-
sation for damage and unconsidered, arbitrary and illogical
failure properly to apply the relevant case-law.

7. Infringement of the standards for fair trials, with reference in
particular
to the standards laid down by the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
mental Freedoms.