Case T-28/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Germany v Commission
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, financial loss, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, rural development, town and country planning








C_2016098EN.01005601.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/56





Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-28/16)
(2016/C 098/72)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1 and the annex to 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), in so far as the payments incurred by the competent authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany under the EAFRD in the total amount of EUR 7 719 920,30 are excluded from EU financing;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of Article 71(2) read in conjunction with Article 2(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (1) in so far as the Commission required selection criteria to be applied not only to a concrete ‘operation’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Regulation No 1698/2005, but also to preliminary phases of the national land reorganisation and village renewal procedures, and in so far as the Commission misconstrued the conditions applicable to selection criteria.










2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of the partnership principle set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the principle of sincere cooperation (the first paragraph of Article 4(3) TEU) and the principle that legitimate expectations be protected, in so far as the Commission based its corrective decision on an approach that the Commission itself had approved or had not called into question.










3.


Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 TEU), in so far as the Commission encroached upon the procedural autonomy and the planning prerogatives of the Member States.










4.


Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, (2) of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and of the principle of proportionality, since, by a flat-rate correction of 10 %, the Commission did not have due regard to the nature and, in any event, limited extent of a potential infringement in connection with the selection criteria and did not take into account the circumstance that the European Union did not suffer any actual financial loss nor was there ever any real risk that it would suffer loss.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

(2)  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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).