Case T-135/15: Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2015-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, common agricultural policy, equal treatment, industrial restructuring, sales promotion, sugar, sugar industry








C_2015155EN.01003601.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/36





Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-135/15)
(2015/C 155/43)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in so far as it is contested in the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 53 final) 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);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests, in particular:






(a)


the part of the decision in which, following audit EX/2010/010, concerning the sugar sector, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 9 0 4 98  735,16 was made, in respect of financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009 on the basis of a ‘correct interpretation of sugar production’;










(b)


the part of the decision, in which, following audit CEB/2011/090, concerning promotional measures, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 6 07  275,90 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’ relating to financial year 2010;










(c)


the part of the decision in which, following audit LA/2009/006, concerning the measure ‘information and promotion campaigns for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries’, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 1 98  831,03 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’.




In support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging breach of Article 31(4) 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 also infringement of the Member State’s rights of defence.










2.


Second plea, alleging breach of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (JO 2006 L 171, p. 60), breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (JO 2006 L 176, p. 32), and that the Commission acted at odds with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November in C-187/12, C-188/12 and C-189/12, SFIR and Others (EU:C:2013:737).










3.


Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, of the non bis in idem rule and of the duty of sincere cooperation.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging breach of the second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation No 1290/2005, breach of the second subparagraph of Article 11(3) and of Chapter 3 of Regulation No 885/2006, and breach of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging breach of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 883/2006, and also the existence, in the present case, of a difference in treatment and distortion of the facts.










6.


Sixth plea, alleging breach of Article 20 of Regulation No 501/2008, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of imputability of financial corrections to the Member States.