Action brought on 9 June 2008 - Spain v Commission

(Case T-206/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Sr. F. Díez Moreno)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as it includes corrections which affect the Kingdom of Spain, deriving from two investigations concerning potential for vine production (VT/VI/2002/14 and VT/VI/2006/09), totalling EUR 54 949 195.80, as a result of the application of a correction at a flat rate of 10% of all the expenditure declared earlier by way of related assistance; and

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The exclusions from Community financing which affect Spain in the present proceedings derive from two investigations concerning potential for vine production (VT/VI/2002/14 and VT/VI/2006/09), taking as a basis for the calculation of the financial correction the expenditure declared by Spain for all the assistance measures for which the products resulting from illegal plots of vineyard plantations in the budgetary years 2003 and 2004 could compete, for a total of EUR 54 949 195.80 (correction at a flat rate of 10% of all the expenditure declared by way of such assistance, in respect of defects in controls of the prohibition on any plantation of vines).

The Kingdom of Spain challenges the proposed financial correction, considering it unjustified and disproportionate, on the basis of the following arguments:

-     failure to state the reasons on which the proposed correction is based;

-     correct implementation by Spanish organisations of controls for the detection of illegal plantations in 2003 and 2004;

-    failure by the Commission to carry out the procedures provided for in connection with the clearance of accounts,

-    inappropriateness of using the results of the investigation carried out in 2002;

-    rejection of the extrapolation of the proposed correction to the Autonomous Regions not visited; and

-    absence of technical arguments to support the proposed percentage of charge: discriminatory aspects of the various regulatory measures.

____________