CELEX: 62017TN0088
Language: en
Date: 2017-02-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-88/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission

27.3.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 95/25
            
         Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-88/17)
   (2017/C 095/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul in part, as regards the paying agency of Extremadura, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2113 of 30 November 2016 on the clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period (16 October 2014-31 December 2015), under which that agency was not reimbursed in the sum of EUR 5 364 682,52.
            
         
               —
            
            
               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 infringement of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1), amended by Council Regulation No 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 144, p. 3), in so far as it does not allow the deduction of a sum of EUR 5 364 682,52 (non-reusable amounts) in the clearance of accounts concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, if the Court should hold that there is not an infringement of Article 69 of Regulation No 1698/2005, that the defendant’s acts are arbitrary, exceeding the institution’s discretion and also infringing the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.