Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 23 September 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-381/04)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 September 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    partially annul Commission Decision C(2004) 2762 final of 16 July 2004 and make such further ruling as may be necessary including with regard to the payment of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The contested measure is Commission Decision C(2004) 2762 final of 16 June 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure amounting to EUR 21 138 010 incurred by Italy under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

The measure is unlawful for failure adequately to state reasons, since it merely reproduces the viewpoint of the Commission without a critical examination of the facts pleaded by Italy during the checks.

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that:

-    the financial recovery is based on an impermissible chain of presumptions. The basic presumption that the checks on the applications for livestock aid are unreliable is founded on the non-existence of the database for identifying and registering animals provided for in Regulation (EC) No 820/97, effective in respect of 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. However, a centralised database for the identification and the registration of animals has been in operation in Italy since 1997. That database, developed and operated by AIMA, was used to carry out cross-checks on individual requests for premiums. Since 1997, all payments for bovine animals have therefore been made after a systematic check that the items required for a premium are in the register and that the conditions for eligibility are complied with;

-    contrary to the Commission's assumption, the national instructions for on-the-spot checks for 2000 and 2001 did not prevent the cross-checks between the stocks of the holding and the data in the databases;

-    the check on the items required for a premium in the 12 months preceding the controls were carried out by means of a comparison between the data collected by the holding and entered in the report and that in the AGEA's archives;

-    the definition of 'cow' and 'heifer' in the Italian provisions applied for the checks on the items required for a premium are consistent with Community provisions;

-    the checks on the animals in the holding were made by applying the criteria in Regulation (EC) No 3887/92 and Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001;        

-    in the management of the premium on slaughter, the belated issue of the instructions for the checks was not irregular since the majority of the applications were made in the month of October and those instructions were able to be applied;

-    contrary to the Commission's assertion, the physical checks and the checks on the identity of the animals at customs was not inadequate;

-    the Italian term 'pasture', which is material for the purposes of the extensification payment, is consistent with the particular characteristics of the national territory, and it is therefore unlawful to apply definitions which relate to different conditions in a country;

-    the irregularities established in connection with on-the-spot checks of animals in the region of Latium do not take account of the fact that the herds are raised in a natural state and that it was proven that the checks required for the grant of the premium were carried out.

____________