CELEX: C2000/176/29
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-158/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg against the Commission of the European Communities

24.6.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 176/17
— With regard to the extent of the parcel of land to be                     part of the expenses declared pursuant to Article 7(1) of
     grubbed up: incorrect interpretation and application of                Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (3) be excluded
     Article 2 of Regulation No 2505/95 and Article 2 of                    from Community financing in respect of a period not
     Regulation No 2684/95.                                                 exceeding 24 months prior to the date of formal receipt of
                                                                            the notice. It follows that a refusal of financing cannot
— With regard to delivery notes and weight notes: misinter-                 affect expenses incurred before 26 May 1996.
     pretation of Article 15 of Regulation No 1558/91 and
     incorrect assessment of the facts.                                — Erroneous reasoning in that the decision does not take
                                                                            account of the evidence put forward by the Grand Duchy
— With regard to the serious deficiencies in the system of                  of Luxembourg for the correct assessment of the financial
     control which are relied upon (Articles 15 and 16 of                   consequences of the irregularities found:
     Regulation No 1558/91: absence of reports and checks):
     misinterpretation of Article 16 of Regulation No 1558/91               — The Commission generalises the defects found by
     and incorrect assessment of the facts.
                                                                                 challenging the whole system of administrative and
                                                                                 on-the-spot controls;
                                                                            — The defects should be viewed in an overall context and
                                                                                 in their true perspective in order to assess their
                                                                                 significance (the financial corrections proposed bear
                                                                                 no relation to the financial interests affected);
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Grand Duchy of                       — The Commission failed to take into account and give
Luxembourg against the Commission of the European                                credit for the many efforts to improve and perfect the
                         Communities                                             integrated system made since it was established (both
                                                                                 in relation to the processing and computerised moni-
                                                                                 toring of applications and in relation to the training of
                        (Case C-158/00)                                          controllers and improvement of the monitoring and
                                                                                 investigative documents). The Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                        (2000/C 176/29)                                          bourg considers that it has proved that the Commission
                                                                                 made a manifest error of assessment as to the financial
                                                                                 consequences to be drawn from the irregularities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        discovered by refusing to take account of the evidence
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     put forward.
Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg, represented by Ferdinand Hofstetter, acting as
Agent, assisted by Roger Nothar, of the Luxembourg Bar, with           — Infringement of the guidelines in Document VI/5330/97
an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Roger               and of the principle of proportionality: The extenuating
Nothar, 99 Avenue du Bois.                                                  circumstance relied upon by the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, proposed by the Conciliation Body and laid down
                                                                            by the guidance document was dismissed by the Com-
The applicant claims that the court should:                                 mission on the ground that the European Parliament insists
                                                                            that the Commission apply the correction factors until the
— annul Commission Decision C(2000) 488 of 1 March                          deficiencies found have been eliminated. That rigorous
     2000, excluding certain expenses by the Grand Duchy                    approach is, however, entirely contrary to the purpose of
     of Luxembourg from Community financing under the                       the guidance document, which is designed to adjust the
     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                      correction factors by reference to actual circumstances. In
     (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the financial years 1996-              addition, the application of a correction factor of 5 % is
     1998 by not definitively charging to the EAGGF the sum                 totally disproportionate in relation to the risk of loss for
     of LUF 56 106 800 by way of expenses relating to arable                the EAGGF, which is in reality non-existent.
     crops;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                               (1) OJ L 125, 8.6.1995, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13.
                                                                       (3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on
                                                                           data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of
                                                                           the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and
                                                                           repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2776/88 (OJ L 39, 17.2.1996,
— Infringement of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No
                                                                           p. 5).
     1287/95 of 22 May 1995 (1) amending Regulation (EEC)
     No 729/70 (2) on the financing of the common agricultural
     policy: It was only in a notice of 26 May 1998 that the
     Directorate General for Agriculture informed the Grand
     Duchy of Luxembourg of its intention to recommend that