- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-107/09: Action brought on 12 March 2009 — United Kingdom v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0107
62009TN0107
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
16.5.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 113/40
(Case T-107/09)
2009/C 113/81
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, agent assisted by T. Eicke, Barrister)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Commission decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in part, namely in so far as it has the effect of applying a correction to the Fruit and Vegetable aid scheme against the United Kingdom for alleged weaknesses in its control system concerning the recognition of POs created before 2002 (not providing technical means) and
—order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of present application, the applicant seeks the partial annulement of Commission decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) on the ground that the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 11(2)(d) of Council Regulation No 2200/96 in finding that the United Kingdom government had failed to observe the conditions laid down in that provision for the recognition of Producer Organisation in the fruit and vegetable sector.
The applicant contends that the Commission’s restrictive interpretation of Article 11(2)(d) of Council Regulation 2200/96 underlying the relevant aspects of the contested decision is inconsistent both with the language and with the object and purpose of that provision.
Notified under document number C(2008) 7820, OJ 2008 L 340, p. 99
Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1