Action brought on 2 June 2009 - Denmark v Commission

(Case T-212/09)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg, Agent, assisted by P. Biering and J. Pinborg, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Primarily, set aside the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 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 that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark;

In the alternative, set aside in part the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 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 that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark, to the extent to which the exclusion from Community financing is based on:

an alleged breach of the rules on, and weakness in, the control of set-aside areas in 2002, 2003 and/or 2004; and/or

an alleged breach of the rules on, and weakness in, remote-sensing control in 2003 and/or 2004;

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 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 that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark. ¹

The applicant submits that the Commission's decision is, in a number of respects, based on an erroneous understanding and application of the legal basis, particularly in regard to the issue of maintenance of the set-aside areas and the requirements relating to remote-sensing control.

It is further submitted that the decision suffers from fundamental defects in its reasoning and is in a number of respects at variance with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and with the principle of legal certainty.

In conclusion, the applicant contends that the correction was carried out in a manner contrary to the Commission's own guidelines, has an insufficient basis in the facts and is disproportionate in light of the fact that the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was not faced with a genuine financial risk in this case.

____________

¹ - OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15; notified under document number C(2009) 1945.