Case T-237/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Andalusia, EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, eligibility criteria, fruit, vegetable








C_2017202EN.01002402.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/24





Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-237/17)
(2017/C 202/40)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 766 final of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the EAGF and the EAFRD in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, fruit and vegetables sector, in relation to the investigation (FV 2011/003/ES),










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11(1)(a) and (d)(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1) and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 18), in conjunction with Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 2(a) of 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 2003 L 270, p. 1).






—


The Kingdom of Spain submits that the Commission infringed Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation 2200/96, as regards the producer organisation Tilla Huelva, in considering that the three members of that organisation did not meet the ‘producer’ condition and that, consequently, the provisions of Article 11 of Regulation 2200/96 relating to the requirements of democratic scrutiny had not been observed, since that organisation was at all times composed of producers, with the result that the rules of democratic scrutiny laid down in Article 11(1)(d)(3) of Regulation 2200/96 and Article 14 of Commission Regulation 1432/2003, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Regulation 1782/2003 were fulfilled.














2.


Second 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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).






—


In the applicant’s view, the use of a flat-rate assessment in order to impose a financial correction on Andalucia is contrary to what is now Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (which replaces Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005) and the Guidelines concerning the calculations of financial consequences contained in Document VI/5330/97. The flat-rate correction imposed is unlawful and, in any event, disproportionate. The Commission should have imposed a one-off correction in the cases in which there were actually deficiencies. In the alternative, the flat-rate correction should have been 5 %.