Case T-20/25: Action brought on 15 January 2025 – Spain v Commission
Date: 2025-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural holding, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid, young farmer








C_202501547EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1547


17.3.2025






Action brought on 15 January 2025 – Spain v Commission


(Case T-20/25)

(C/2025/1547)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Núñez Silva, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2879 of 13 November 2024 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by certain Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of Spain and excludes EUR 15 940 837,12;










—


in the alternative, in accordance with part C of the second plea in law, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the amount of the correction, it being understood that, as regards the review of the correct application of Article 30(9) of Regulation No 1307/2013, (2) it will amount to EUR 720 297,78, since Article 54(3), first subparagraph, point (a)(i) of Regulation No 1306/2013 applies; (3)











—


in the further alternative, in accordance with part C of the second plea in law, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the amount of the correction, it being understood that, as regards the review of the correct application of Article 30(9) of Regulation No 1307/2013, it will amount to EUR 1 220 433,23, since Article 23(5) of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 applies; (4)











—


order the European 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, based on the controls in relation to compliance with the definition of young farmer and farmer commencing his or her agricultural activity.










1.1.-


Control relating to the setting up for the first time of an agricultural holding as head of the holding.
By interpreting the concept of ‘young farmer’ restrictively as requiring a more restrictive control in relation to their setting up as head of the holding, the contested decision misinterpreted the provisions of Regulations No 1307/2013 and No 639/2014. This first plea is divided in turn into the following sub-points, which demonstrate the breach committed by the Commission by means of the adopted decision.










A.


Infringement of Article 30(6) and (11) and Article 50 of Regulation No 1307/2013 and Articles 49 and 50 of Regulation No 639/2014 (5) The Commission has breached the abovementioned provisions for the following reasons: (i) it does not follow from the wording of Article 30(11), read in conjunction with Article 50 of Regulation No 1307/2013, that the setting up for the first time by a young farmer of an agricultural holding as head of the holding means that it was impossible to have done it previously, prior to the preceding five years; (ii) it follows from the systematic interpretation of those articles in conjunction with Article 30(11)(b) of Regulation No 1307/2013 that the concepts of ‘start of the activity’ and ‘setting up for the first time’ must have the same meaning; (iii) it follows from the purposive interpretation of those provisions that the legislature wished young farmers and farmers commencing their agricultural activity to have the same priority with regard to the national reserve.










B.


Failure to comply with the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations
The Commission fails to comply with the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in so far as there was a prior investigation carried out by the Commission in 2016 (NAC/2016/012/ES) and a hearing by the European Court of Auditors finalised by Special Report 10/2018, and at no point did the Commission raise any objections in line with the contested decision. Consequently, the Kingdom of Spain acted, in any event, under the legitimate expectation that the interpretation that it had made of EU legislation was appropriate with the result that the position now taken by the Commission leads to a failure to observe that legitimate expectation created in the minds of the Spanish authorities.










1.2-


Control relating to the fulfilment of the conditions for setting up for the first time an agricultural holding and the date of submission of the single application for assistance
Infringement of Article 30(11) and Article 50(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013, of Article 28(4) and Articles 49 and 50 of Regulation No 639/2014. By interpreting the eligibility conditions for ‘setting up for the first time’ as head of the holding and for the ‘start of an agricultural activity’ as having to be met at the latest at the moment the application for assistance is submitted, the contested decision incorrectly and excessively restrictively interpreted the provisions of Regulations No 1307/2013 and No 639/2014. It follows from the combined interpretation of Article 72(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 15 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 that, until the deadline for amendments has been reached, the application cannot be considered complete and that, given the possibility of adding or adjusting parcels, in the case of the setting up of young farmers, until that deadline has been reached it is not possible to know with certainty which is the holding that that farmer is going to set up, and, therefore, the time limit for the date of that setting up must be the same.










2.


Second plea in law, based on the controls in relation to the correct application of Article 30(9) of Regulation No 1307/2013
The Commission decision, by finding that the allocations made by the Kingdom of Spain after 1 April 2016 were due to ongoing administrative and on-the-spot checks, and that they, therefore, did not comply with the purpose of that provision, misinterprets Article 30(9) of Regulation No 1307/2013. This second plea is divided, in turn, into two distinct parts, to which a third plea in law has been added in the alternative.










A.


Infringement of Article 30(9) of Regulation No 1307/2013 and Article 18 of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014 The Commission errs in its interpretation since the Spanish authorities complied with the deadline set by Article 18 of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014 for carrying out all the administrative and on-the-spot checks. Furthermore, acts carried out after 1 April 2016 fall squarely within the concept established in Article 30(9) of Regulation No 1307/2013 since they meet the requirements of final court decisions and administrative acts.










B.


Failure to comply with the principle of legal certainty By communicating via the Information Note of 7 April 2016 that the time limit contained in Article 18 of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014 was not final, the Commission failed to comply with the principle of legal certainty. This results in a de facto change to an act adopted by the institutions without complying with the rules of competence and procedure. This works to the detriment of the Kingdom of Spain, which, acting under the belief that that deadline applied to it, complied with that deadline. Had it known that that deadline was not final it would have communicated the number and final value of payment entitlements at a later date such that many of the controls that the Commission now considers to be time-barred would have been carried out within the prescribed time limit. The Commission also fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty in so far as, since there was a prior investigation carried out by the Commission in 2016 (NAC/2016/012/ES) and a hearing by the European Court of Auditors finalised by Special Report 10/2018, the purpose of which was to verify precisely that the management and control of the payment entitlements had been carried out in accordance with EU legislation, at no point did the Commission raise any objections in line with the contested decision. It is therefore contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to the predictability in the application of the rules that, years after that report and basing itself thereon, the Commission has now reached a different conclusion even though the acts of the Spanish authorities were already subject to review for the same reason without any objections having been raised.










C.


Infringement of Article 54(3), first subparagraph, point (a)(i) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of Article 23(5) of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 In the alternative, the Commission decision infringed Article 54(3), first subparagraph, point (a)(i) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 23(5) of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 in so far as those provisions provide, respectively, for the possibility of not recovering amounts that do not exceed EUR 100 and of not recovering undue payment entitlements whose value is less than EUR 50. Consequently, it would be appropriate to recalculate the risk such that it would not amount to EUR 3 945 569,46, and so, if Article 54(3), first subparagraph, point (a)(i) of Regulation No 1306/2013 were to apply, the risk would be EUR 720 297,78, or EUR 1 220 433,23 if Article 23(5) of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 were to apply instead.






(1)  
            OJ L 2024/2879, 15.11.2024, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ L 347, 2013, p. 608).

(3)  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 L 347, 2013, p. 549).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ L 227, 2014, p. 69).

(5)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ L 181, 2014, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1547/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)