CELEX: 62015TN0143
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-143/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Spain v Commission

1.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/19
            
         Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-143/15)
   (2015/C 178/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Abogados del Estado)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul in part the Commission’s implementing decision of 16 January 2015 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), in so far as it excludes:
               
                           1.
                        
                        
                           aid received by the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the Comunidad de Andalucía totalling EUR 3 5 86  250,48 plus EUR 1 8 66  977,31 (decoupled direct aid) in financial years 2009 and 2010,
                        
                     
                           2.
                        
                        
                           expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the Comunidad de Castilla y León amounting to EUR 2 1 23  619,66 (EUR 1  479,90 euros + EUR 9 78  849,95 + EUR 12  597,37 + EUR 1  720,85 + EUR 1 0 96  710,18 + EUR 32  261,41) in respect of ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in financial years 2010 and 2011; and
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Kingdom of Spain claims that the contested decision should be annulled on the following grounds:
   
               1.
            
            
               The imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 5 4 53  227,79 (decoupled direct aids) is contrary to Article 27(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Articles 3 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, for two reasons:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Commission misinterpreted Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, given that the fact that the results of the random samples carried out in 2008 and 2009 were not as good as the results of the risk sample does not constitute an infringement of that article and, accordingly, does not constitute an infringement of EU law which excludes financing of agricultural expenditure under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Commission could not reasonably conclude that Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 had been infringed given that the evidence adduced by the Kingdom of Spain during the verification procedure established that an adequate analysis had been carried out and appropriate measures had been taken to improve risk-based selection. Accordingly, there has not been an infringement of EU law which excludes financing of agricultural expenditure under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               The imposition of a correction in the amount of EUR 2 1 23  619,66 (‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’) should be annulled for the following reasons:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           It infringes Articles 10(2), 10(4) and 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 in so far as the Commission found that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations concerning controls on the ground, since it had failed to carry out animal counts during on-the-spot checks in respect of aid pertaining to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’. This plea in law is divided into two parts, by which the Kingdom of Spain submits that:
                           
                                       a)
                                    
                                    
                                       the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot checks in respect of the aid for the rural development programme of Castilla y León 2007-2013 breaches the principle of the continuity of the livestock density criterion and the principle of equal treatment, and
                                    
                                 
                                       b)
                                    
                                    
                                       the Commission wrongly interpreted Articles 10(2) and 10(4), read in conjunction with Article 14(2), of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 by finding that the Spanish system was not appropriate for verifying compliance with the livestock density criterion.
                                    
                                 
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           It infringes Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, to the extent that the Kingdom of Spain has databases of cattle, sheep and goats which are reliable and continually updated in accordance with requirements.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           It infringes Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in so far as it is manifestly disproportionate to impose a financial correction of 5 % in respect of the measures concerned by the investigation. The financial correction is disproportionate as, even if the infringement attributed to the Spanish authorities were to be confirmed, the contested decision goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary to protect the financial interests of the Union.