Case T-34/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality








C_2016118EN.01003202.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/32





Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-34/16)
(2016/C 118/37)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and T. Orlickas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 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) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) in so far as that decision provides for a financial correction of EUR 1 113 589,65 to be applied to Lithuania;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.



First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, applied in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:






—


failed to take into account the fact that the specific and precise damage caused to the European Union was established by reason of the first and fourth infringements found by the Commission; therefore, in regard to those infringements, the Commission ought to have established only a one-off financial correction and ought no longer to have taken account of those infringements in conjunction with other infringements when seeking to establish whether there was a significant risk of financial loss to the Fund;










—


unjustifiably broke down directly related infringements and thereby artificially created an allegedly significant risk of loss to the Fund;










—


incorrectly determined and incorrectly took into account, whilst assessing the other infringements found by it, the extent of the discrepancy, the nature of the infringements and the financial damage caused to the European Union;










—


improperly applied an excessive 5 % financial correction for 2011 because, taking into account the nature of the infringements found by the Commission and other circumstances, the resultant risk of loss to the Fund was not significant;










—


improperly applied a 5 % financial correction for 2012 because application thereof is provided for only in cases where there is a significant resultant risk of loss to the Fund, even though the checks carried out by the Republic of Lithuania and the information provided established that the number, extent and nature of the discrepancies established for 2012 and the resultant risk to the Fund are significantly lower in comparison with the discrepancies established in 2011; consequently, only a small financial risk to the Fund could have arisen.














2.



Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, inasmuch as the Commission did not take the view that on-the-spot checks of ovine and bovine animals could take place at different times, with the result that that particular infringement is not as significant as the Commission indicates.










3.



Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:






—


failed to provide proper reasons for and substantiate its finding of infringements or the nature of such infringements and the resultant risk to the Fund;










—


did not provide reasons why the discrepancies established in 2011 and 2012 for the purpose of applying the 5 % financial correction were assessed jointly even though their number and nature differed significantly in each year, and, in any event, did not provide any convincing reasons why a uniform flat-rate correction of 5 % has to be imposed for the discrepancies established in 2012 and for those established in 2011.