CELEX: C2004/118/64
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-176/04: Action brought on 14 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities

30.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 118/34
            
         Action brought on 14 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-176/04)
   (2004/C 118/64)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by A. Goldman, acting as Agent assisted by H. Gilliams, acting as avocat
   The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Decision 2004/1367EC 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) (1) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of EURO 9,322,809 for arable crops in respect of the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, on the basis of its comprehensive jurisdiction, reduce the correction of EUR 9,322,809 applied by the Commission to EUR 1,079,814.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The applicant also asks that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The two infringements alleged by the Commission to have been committed by Belgium, namely incomplete administrative checks and delay in the introduction of the graphic data for the crop years in question, are in reality based on a misapplication by the Commission of the Community provisions. The Commission is therefore wrong to impose a fixed correction on the applicant.
   
      (1)  OJ L 40 of 10.2.2004, p. 31.