CELEX: 62016TN0682
Language: en
Date: 2016-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-682/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — France v Commission

28.11.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 441/24
            
         
      Action brought on 23 September 2016 — France v Commission
      (Case T-682/16)
      (2016/C 441/28)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016, notified on 13 July 2016, suspending monthly payments to France under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549). This plea has two limbs.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              First limb: the French authorities implemented in full the action plan including clear progress indicators established following consultation with the Commission to which the contested decision refers.
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Second limb: the contested decision is based on factors which were not envisaged in the action plan.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.