C 380/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
3.10.2022
1.
First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation and application of the defendant’s instrument governing reclassifications, namely decision 2016-016 of the Management Board, in so far as, according to the defendant, that decision subjects reclassification, at each grade, to a condition of average minimum seniority in the grade that the staff member to be reclassified must satisfy and which, in the applicant’s case, for AD 9, was four years.
The applicant relies on the fact that he obtained a very high number of reclassification points and that his grade and AD 10 were the only AD grades to which that condition of seniority was applied. 2.
Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, claiming that the abovementioned decision is unlawful on the ground that it is incompatible with a number of principles and rules of law governing public service employment, in particular those regarding reclassification based on merit. 3.
Third plea in law, put forward in the further alternative, alleging failure to observe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects, and a manifest error of assessment in so far as, for all AD grades except that of the applicant and AD 10, reclassifications occurred despite the fact that the average minimum seniority condition was not satisfied.
Action brought on 2 August 2022 –Sweden v Commission (Case T-485/22) (2022/C 380/24) Language of the case: Swedish Parties Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: H. Shev och F.-L. Göransson, acting as Agents) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 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), (1) in so far as the decision entails for Sweden a flat-rate correction of five percent, corresponding to a sum of EUR 13 856 996,64 in respect of aid paid to Sweden for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 claim years, and, — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, according to the applicant, has not complied with its duty to state reasons since the Commission’s reasoning when it made the decision or the deficiencies that are alleged against Sweden are not clear.
There is therefore insufficient information to determine whether the contested decision is well founded. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52 of Regulation 1306/2013 (2) and Articles 28-29 of 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 (3) owing to the Commission having erred in its assessment when it found that there were systemic deficiencies in the implementation of cross-checks, which affects the quality of LPIS updates, which is considered to constitute a weakness in the key controls.
That is the case because, (1), the quality of the update of the LPIS can only be assessed in relation to the land parcel database as a whole, (2), the Commission’s choice of land parcels for investigation was too limited to be able to demonstrate a systemic deficiency, and, (3), the Commission’s finding as to the number of deficient land parcels and the error rate — which was apparently the basis for the Commission’s assessment that there is a systemic deficiency in the LPIS update — is not correct.