Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 30 September 2005 - France v Commission

(Case T-370/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): French Republic (Paris, France) (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.Colomb, Agents)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

-    annul Commission Decision C (2005) 2756 final of 20 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it excludes from Community financing the sum of EUR 13 519 122.05 in respect of a correction relating to determination of the areas eligible for aid for restructuring and reconversion of vineyards for the 2001-2003 financial year;

-    order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision which is the subject-matter of these proceedings, the Commission made a decision on clearance of the applicant's accounts in the wine sector of an amount corresponding to the amount to be excluded from Community financing on account of, first, a correction for exceeding new planting rights and, secondly, a correction made by the Commission in respect of the areas declared eligible by France for reconversion/restructuring aid and the areas considered eligible for such aid by the Commission for the marketing years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Only the second part of the decision at issue, concerning the correction relating to the discrepancy in area, is challenged by the applicant.

In support of its claims, the applicant relies on two pleas. By the first, the applicant claims that the Commission misapplied Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99 ¹ since it did not prove the existence of an infringement of the Community rules by the French Government regarding the calculation of aid for restructuring and reconversion of vineyards, nor the existence of harm allegedly caused to the Community budget by the calculation method chosen by the French Government.

The second plea raised by the applicant alleged an insufficient statement of reasons, since the contested decision did not explain the rules which the Commission intended to be applied to the non-planted areas, capable of being taken into account in the calculation of aid, nor did it justify clearly application of a financial correction of 10% to the amounts of aid for restructuring and reconversion of vineyards.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p.103.