Appeal brought on 29 November 2023 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Case T-450/21, Spain v Commission
(Case C-729/23 P)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. Herranz Elizalde, acting as Agent)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission
French Republic
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
set aside the judgment delivered on 20 September 2023 in Case T-450/21, and
give final judgment in the matter and grant the application for annulment of the contested decision.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
First ground of appeal:
Infringement of Article 31 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014, 1 Article 53(4) of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014 2 and Article 63 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 3
Error in describing the conduct at issue and the applicable legal framework. The judgment errs in describing the conduct at issue in disregard of the ‘aid application’ element and in defining the legal framework without taking into account the existence of specific provisions imposing penalties for late notifications of animal movements.
Error in finding that the application for aid in respect of animals eligible for aid is conduct that may be penalised: (i) No statement of reasons. (ii) Misapplication of the literal, contextual and historical interpretation. (iii) Error in determining the purpose of the interpreted provisions and in applying the principles of proportionality and effectiveness: the purpose of the provision at issue was to protect financial interests; the penalties at issue were not necessary for that purpose and were, therefore, disproportionate. Furthermore, the penalties at issue deprive Article 53(4) of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014 of its effectiveness. (iv) Failure to observe the principle ne bis in idem – Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: This is due to the fact that the judgment equated the punishable conduct and the purpose of the provision at issue with the conduct covered by other punitive provisions and their purpose. (v) Error in considering the 2021 reform a less severe punitive measure and, in the alternative, infringement of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by not applying it retroactively.
Error in finding that the aid application covers animals which the animal register records as ineligible: Infringement of Article 2(1)(19) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 and of Article 21(4) of Regulation No 809/2014. 1
Second ground of appeal:
Failure to observe the principle of legal certainty and the principle of legality under Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judgment infers the obligation to impose penalties by way of analogy. The legal framework was not sufficiently clear to assert that the conduct at issue should be penalised.
Third ground of appeal:
Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 34(3) to (5) of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014.
Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection: The judgment does not rule on the claims pertaining to the first part of that financial correction.
Failure to state reasons: The conduct at issue is not provided for in the provision that was applied. The judgment does not explain how the Kingdom of Spain infringed that provision.
Infringement of Article 34(3) to (5) of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014: The judgment does not establish a concrete requirement that the error rate of the random sample should always be less than that of the sample based on risk.
Fourth ground of appeal:
Failure to observe the principle of non-discrimination between paying agencies: The judgment confuses the fact of establishing a comparable situation and a difference in treatment with the justification of such treatment, and errs in imposing on the Kingdom of Spain the burden of demonstrating that the difference in treatment was unjustified.
____________
1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).
1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1).
1 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).