Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/5

—

(Case C-610/13 P)

2014/C 31/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, M.A.M. de Ree, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013 in Case T-343/11;

—in so far as the state of proceedings permits the Court to give final judgment, dispose of the case by annulling Decision 2011/244/EU; (1)

—if the state of proceedings does not so permit, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits;

—order the Commission to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

—First ground: erroneous interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1433/2003, (2) read in conjunction with Annex I, points 8 and 9, and Annex II, point 1, to that regulation, in so far as costs for the printing of packages were treated as packaging costs and as a result were considered ineligible.

—Second ground: erroneous interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1433/2003, read in conjunction with points 8 and 9 of Annex I to that regulation, in so far as the wrong test was used for the requirements which apply to the description of promotional operations in an operational programme.

—Third ground: incorrect application of Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3) and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 (4) in so far as the Commission was allowed a less onerous burden of proof.

—Fourth ground: erroneous interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation No 1432/2003, (5) read in conjunction with Article 11 of Regulation No 2200/96, (6) in so far as it was concluded that the producer organisation could not manage sales by means of seconded staff.

—Fifth ground: erroneous interpretation of Article 21 of Regulation No 1432/2003 in so far as it was concluded that it was necessary to withdraw recognition from the producer organisation FresQ.

—Sixth ground: incorrect application of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with Article 21 of Regulation No 1432/2003, in so far as all of the payments made by the producer organisation FresQ were excluded from financing.

*

Decision of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational funds, operational programmes and financial assistance (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 25).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 18).

Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1).

—