Action brought on 16 September 2009 - Centraal bureau voor de statistiek v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-361/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Centraal bureau voor de statistiek (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van den Tweel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the Commission's Decision of 7 July 2009, ref. ESTAT/E-1/ME/ykl/eb D(2009) 10188, concerning definitive payment of the contribution to expenses incurred in relation to the structure survey for 2005, in the sum of EUR 546 818.77;

in the alternative, order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 38 295.55 together with interest thereon with effect from the 45th day after the date of the Decision of 7 July 2009 until the actual payment of that sum;

in either case, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested decision conflicts with Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 of 29 February 1988 on the organisation of Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings between 1988 and 1997 (OJ 1988 L 56, p. 1, as subsequently amended), with the agreement concluded between the applicant and the Commission concerning the Community contribution to the investigation costs for the structure survey for 2005 in the Netherlands (contract No 62102.2005.001-2005.055) and with the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to state reasons. In any event, the Decision incorrectly determines the remuneration to which the applicant is entitled.

In its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly failed to award any remuneration under Article 14(1) of Regulation No 571/88 but instead tried to impose on the applicant a more detailed foundation for the costs incurred, not just of the number of holdings surveyed. As Article 14 of the Regulation expressly provides for a fixed remuneration per holding surveyed, up to a maximum of EUR 700 000, any other interpretation would moreover be contrary to the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.

In its second plea, the applicant submits that Article II.14.3 of the agreement between the applicant and the Commission does not apply to the costs invoiced by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Commission wrongly failed to take these invoices fully into account as actually incurred, direct costs that are eligible for subsidy. In any event, the Commission did not state adequate reasons for its decision.

Finally, the applicant submits, in the alternative, that, if Article II.14.3 of the agreement is indeed applicable, the costs eligible for subsidy were calculated incorrectly or in an incomprehensible way without further explanation, since the Commission wrongly takes into account the indirectly productive hours when calculating the applicable hourly rate. The Commission's reasoning is not clearly and unambiguously expressed in the contested decision, which was therefore in any event established in breach of the duty to state reasons.

____________