Case T-232/08: Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission
Date: 2008-06-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, Luxembourg, action for annulment (EU), agricultural expenditure, budgetary control, common agricultural policy

C 209/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Luxembourg v
Commission

is an actual financial risk such as to give rise to the application
of a flat rate correction.

(Case T-232/08)

(2008/C 209/104)

Language of the case: French

Finally, the applicant submits that the non-application of sanc-
tions where there is an over-declaration by the beneficiaries
could not constitute the basis for a flat rate correction of 5 %,
since the actual level of irregular expenditure can be determined
exactly. Moreover, according to the applicant the amount of irre-
gular expenditure is extremely low in relation to the total
amount paid by the Community.

Parties

(1) Notified under document number C(2008) 1283, OJ 2008 L 109,

p. 35.

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: F.
Probst, acting as Agent and M. Theisen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Action brought on 10 June 2008 — EuroChem MCC v
Council

— annul decision C(2008) 1283 of the Commission of the
European Communities of 8 April 2008 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 is excludes from Community financing for the finan-
cial years 2004-2005 the expenditure of paying agencies in
the amount of EUR 949 971,51 on the ground that it does
not comply with Community rules;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

seeks

the Guarantee Section of

The applicant
the annulment of Commission Deci-
sion 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under
the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European
Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (1) in so far as is excludes
certain expenditure incurred by Luxembourg for
the years
2004-2005.

As regards the planning of on-the-spot checks of recipients, the
applicant submits that the Commission wrongly complained
that it had carried out the majority of the checks in the same
period of the year instead of spreading them over the whole
year and without taking into account the optimal period for
checking certain commitments.

In addition, the applicant claims that the on-the-spot checks
carried out effectively related to the entirety of the recipient's
commitments and obligations
the
commitment period, contrary to what the Commission claimed
in the pre-litigation stage before the conciliation body.

from the beginning of

Concerning the documentation of the on-the-spot checks, the
applicant takes the view that the mere fact that the control
reports are not sufficiently detailed, as claimed by the Commis-
sion in the pre-litigation stage, does not mean ipso facto that
the controls were not carried out and does not prove that there

(Case T-234/08)

(2008/C 209/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO
(EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander
Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 238/2008 of 10 March
2008 terminating the partial
interim review pursuant to
Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-
dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammo-
nium nitrate originating in Russia, insofar as it imposes an
anti-dumping duty on the applicant, its manufacturing subsi-
diaries and related companies, indicated in paragraph 10 of
the contested regulation;

— Order the competent institutions, in light of the gravity of
breaches of Community law found, to discontinue the impo-
sition of the anti-dumping duty with respect to the applicant
and its manufacturing subsidiaries and related companies,
until the Community institutions have adopted the measures
necessary to comply with the Court's judgment;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of and occasioned by

these proceedings.