CELEX: C2000/335/64
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-346/00: Action brought on 20 September 2000 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities

25.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 335/37
The appellants claim that the Court should:                               Communities on 20 September 2000 by the United Kingdom,
                                                                          represented by Mrs Rachel Magrill, of the Treasury Solicitor’s
—     annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July           Department, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr Peter Roth QC, of
      2000;                                                               the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard Roosevelt.
—     declare that the appellants have locus standi to initiate
      proceedings for the partial annulment of Council Regu-
      lation No 1804/99 of 19 July 1999 (1);                              The Applicant claims that the Court should order that:
and, accordingly,
                                                                          1)     Commission Decision 2000/449/EC (1) should be
—     grant the appellants leave to rely on their previous written               annulled to the extent that it excludes expenditure of the
      submissions;                                                               UK paying agencies in the total amount of
                                                                                 EUR 5 039 175,46 / £ 2 919 698,26 in respect of arable
—     grant the other parties leave to present argument on the                   crops for the financial years 1996 and 1997;
      substance of the case;
—     order the Council to bear all the costs of the proceedings          2)     the Commission should pay the costs of the United
      at first instance and of the present appeal.                               Kingdom.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments:
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in refusing to recognise that the derogation inserted
      into Article 5(3a) of Council Regulation No 2092/91 (2)
      by Regulation No 1804/99 was in the nature of a                     The United Kingdom submits that:
      decision. The derogation in issue is contrary to the spirit
      of the regulation and to the positions previously taken by
      the Community. The circumstances of its adoption                    a)     the Decision was unlawful as there was no basis for
      confirm that it serves to protect individual interests,                    concluding that expenditure was not effected in com-
      namely those of Danone, the only major company                             pliance with Community rules within the first paragraph
      concerned.                                                                 of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation 729/70 (2);
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in holding that the applicants are not individually           b)     alternatively, if the system of supervision was inadequate,
      concerned, when their competitive position is under-                       the determination of the amount excluded was in breach
      mined owing to the adoption of the derogation in issue.                    of the fourth paragraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                 729/70 and/or was manifestly incorrect;
(1) OJ L 222, p. 1.
(2) Regulation on organic production of agricultural products and         c)     the application of a 2 per cent flat-rate deduction for
    indications referring thereto on agricultural products and food-             1995 and 1996 breaches the principle of proportionality;
    stuffs, OJ L 198, p. 1.
                                                                          d)     the Decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural
                                                                                 requirements.
Action brought on 20 September 2000 by the United                         (1) Commission Decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community
Kingdom against the Commission of the European Com-                           financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
                                                                              the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
                               munities                                       Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 180, 19.07.2000, p. 49).
                                                                          (2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
                            (Case C-346/00)                                   the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94,
                                                                              28.04.70, p. 13 [SE SER1 70(1) p. 218]).
                           (2000/C 335/64)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European