EN
C 418/38
Official Journal of the European Union
31.10.2022
Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Spain v Commission (Case T-508/22) (2022/C 418/52) Language of the case: Spanish Parties Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. Herranz Elizalde, acting as Agent) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: (i) annul 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 it concerns the Kingdom of Spain; (ii) in the alternative, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the estimated risk for the 2016 and 2017 financial years to EUR 3 241 314,99; (iii) in the further alternative, in accordance with the second plea in law, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the flat-rate correction for the 2016 and 2017 financial years from 5 % to 2 %; (iv) 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, alleging improper application of the flat-rate correction. — In that regard, the applicant claims that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality as regards financial corrections, by improperly applying a flat-rate correction, in breach of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (2) and the right to good administration, in failing to examine with the requisite care the risk assessments submitted by the Spanish authorities.
The first plea in law is in turn divided into the following parts, which, in the applicant’s submission, demonstrate, taken both in isolation and together, that the financial correction applied is disproportionate. — III.1.
Error of assessment in concluding that there is a serious and reasonable doubt as to the extent of the checks in respect of statutory management requirement 1 (‘SMR 1’). — The Commission erred (i) because it failed to take into account that, in the field checks, the inspectors checked the requirement relating to the measurement of the storage facilities for livestock manure and the review of the records; (ii) because, in the audit, there was no on-the-spot measurement or check such as to demonstrate any irregularities on the part of the beneficiaries or any errors that the inspectors may have committed in carrying out the checks; (iii) in regarding as a deficiency in the extent and quality of the checks in respect of SMR 1 what could only have been classified, where appropriate, as a deficiency in the key control ‘Communication of the results’, which the Commission already specifically evaluated in the composite report. — III. 2.
Error of assessment in considering that there is a serious and reasonable doubt as to the extent of the checks in respect of statutory management requirement 3 (‘SMR 3’).