Case T-22/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Bulgaria v Commission
Date: 2018-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, eligibility criteria, financial aid, rural development








C_2018104EN.01004601.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/46





Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Bulgaria v Commission
(Case T-22/18)
(2018/C 104/59)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and L Zacharieva)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 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(2017) 7263), in so far as concerns budget item 6711, which excludes from financing by the European Commission, under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), certain expenses of the Republic of Bulgaria in the amount of EUR 11 685 774,48, with a financial impact of EUR 11 412 865,79, after deduction of EUR 272 908,69;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Grounds concerning amounts excluded from financing by the European Union on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Sufficient quality of on-the-spot checks’ and deficiency in key control ‘Adequate verification of payment claims’; on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to direct purchases; on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to evaluation committee’:






—


Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of Article 34 of Implementing Regulation No 908/2014 in connection with the addition by the Commission of new grounds in support of its findings on the quality of on-the-spot checks;










—


Infringement of the principle of legal certainty in connection with the lack of clear criteria and instructions concerning the sufficient quality of the on-the-spot checks;










—


Infringement of the principle of sound financial management and the clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 in connection with the application of unjustified financial corrections;










—


Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections in connection with the financial correction applied under measure No 311 for the financial years 2013, 2014 and 2015;










—


Infringement of the of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections in connection with the application of the amount of the financial correction which is not proportionate to the actual risk of financial harm caused to the European Union;










—


Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections concerning the application of the financial corrections in connection with the sufficient quality of the on-the-spot checks;










—


Infringement of Article 34(6) of Implementing Regulation No 908/2014, Article 12(8) of Delegated Regulation No 907/2014, of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections and of the principle of proportionality in connection with the application of corrections in respect of all expenditure for which reimbursement has been requested;










—


Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections and of the principle of proportionality in connection with the definition of the ground for applying corrections in respect of projects in the period under review;














2.


Grounds solely concerning amounts excluded from financing by the European Union on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to evaluation committee;






—


Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, of Article 12 of Delegated Regulation No 907/2014 and of the principle of legal certainty in connection with the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections concerning the application of the methodology for calculating the financial corrections;










—


Infringement of the principle of proportionality in connection with the amount of the financial corrections applied by the Commission.