CELEX: C2006/224/79
Language: en
Date: 2006-09-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-221/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2006 — Belgium v Commission (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Arable crops — Check on areas based on a system of aerial orthoimagery (GIS) — Difference between the area declared and the area resulting from the GIS system — Administrative check and inspection on site — Loss to EAGGF)

16.9.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 224/37
            
         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2006 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-221/04) (1)
   
   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Arable crops - Check on areas based on a system of aerial orthoimagery (GIS) - Difference between the area declared and the area resulting from the GIS system - Administrative check and inspection on site - Loss to EAGGF)
   (2006/C 224/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: initially, A. Goldman and E. Dominkovits, Agents, subsequently M. Wimmer, Agent, assisted by H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction of 2 % of the expenses declared by Belgium in respect of arable crops.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004 (Case C-176/04).