Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-10/20)
(2020/C 68/66)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Rocchitta, C. Gerardis and E. Feola, avvocati dello Stato)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
—
|
annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2019)7815 of 30 October 2019, in so far as it applies, in respect of Italy, financial corrections relating to Audit Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003, AA/2016/015/IT, FV/2016/002/IT and RD1/2016/803/IT;
|
|
—
|
in the alternative, annul that decision, in so far as it applies the flat-rate correction of EUR 143 924 279,14, relating to the 2015 and 2016 financial years (Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003 and AA/2016/015/IT), instead of the one-off correction fixed by the [Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (Italian Agricultural Payments Authority) (AGEA)] at EUR 64 860 193,65;
|
|
—
|
in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
|
Pleas in law and main arguments
Italy challenges the decision forming the subject matter of the action, in so far as that decision has provided, in respect of Italy, for financial corrections under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
|
(a)
|
Pleas in law concerning the correction resulting from Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003 and AA/2016/015 IT, relating to area-linked aid:
|
1.
|
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (1) with regard to the definition of ‘permanent grassland’ adopted at national level pursuant to [Decree No 6513 of the Italian Minister for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy] of 18 November 2014.
|
|
2.
|
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of 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, (2) and of Article 12(2) and (6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro, (3) with regard to the application of a flat rate, despite the actual risk to the EU budget being calculable.
|
|
3.
|
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with regard to the application of the general clause of ‘disproportionate effort’ used as the basis for applying the flat-rate correction.
|
|
|
(b)
|
Pleas in law concerning the correction resulting from Survey FV/2016/002/IT, relating to producer organisations and operational programmes:
|
4.
|
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 26, 27 and 106 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, (4) and of Article 155 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, (5) with regard to the assumption that (i) there was a systematic lack of detailed information on the examination of the soundness of the estimates supplied by the producer organisations and (ii) deficient checks were carried out in relation to the recognition of those organisations.
|
|
5.
|
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31 and 106 of Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 and of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 499/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council by amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 relating to the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, (6) with regard to the assumption that deficient checks were carried out in relation to the ‘democratic accountability’ criterion.
|
|
|
(c)
|
Plea in law concerning the correction resulting from Survey RD1/2016/803/IT, relating to rural development measures:
|
6.
|
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the criticised irregularities in the public procurement procedures, with regard to the assumption that there was a failure to observe the rules on public procurement in two cases considered, do not exist.
|
|
(1) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.
(2) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.
(3) OJ 2014 L 255, p. 18.
(4) OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1.
(5) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.
(6) OJ 2014 L 145, p. 5.