Case T-437/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — United Kingdom v Commission
Date: 2014-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF








C_2014282EN.01004301.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/43





Action brought on 16 June 2014 — United Kingdom v Commission
(Case T-437/14)
2014/C 282/57
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Wakefield, Barrister, and M. Holt, agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul nine entries (namely the eighth, ninth and tenth entries on p. 51; and the first to sixth entries on p. 52) from the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision of 4 April 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C (2014) 2008) (OJ L 104, p. 43);










—


Order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, all of which relate to the Commission’s interpretation of Statutory Management Requirement 8 (‘SMR 8’) in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 (3).






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error in its interpretation of SMR 8. The three principal arguments in support of that plea are that:






—


the legislative decision to exclude Articles 6, 7 and 8 from SMR 8 must be given effect;










—


the inclusion of Articles 4 and 5 in SMR 8 indicates that Article 3 is insufficient to establish any of its ‘elements’ as cross-compliance obligations; and










—


there is a purposive logic to the EU legislature’s decision to treat Articles 4 and 5 differently from Articles 6, 7 and 8.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that, in its interpretation of SMR 8, the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, which applies with particular force where a measure leads to financial consequences and/or the imposition of a penalty, requires that any uncertainty be resolved in favour of the farmer.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, in its interpretation of SMR 8, the Commission has acted in breach of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, which require that a farmer who has failed to comply with an article of Regulation 21/2004 which is not listed in SMR 8 should not be treated in the same way as a farmer who has failed to comply with an article of Regulation 21/2004 which is listed in SMR 8.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ L 270, p. 1)

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 30, p. 16)

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (OJ L 5, p. 8)