22.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/38

(Case T-260/16)

(2016/C 305/53)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, N. Otte Widgren, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and L. Swedenborg)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—First, declare Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 (the contested decision) invalid in so far as it provides that financial corrections are to be made at a flat rate of 2 percent equivalent to EUR 8 811 286,44 in decoupled direct aid paid out to Sweden for the 2013 claim year under Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, and

—In the alternative, set aside and vary the contested decision so as to reduce the above amount to EUR 1 022 259,46;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the Commission has disregarded Article 52 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 and Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD, in that, in the communication which has to be sent to the Member State under those provisions, it neither specifies the alleged infringement for which the applicant is responsible in this connection nor states what corrective measures are to be taken to ensure that the appropriate EU rules are followed in the future. The communication cannot, therefore, be relied on to justify the imposition of the contested flat rate financial corrections on Sweden.

The applicant submits that the Commission based the contested decision on erroneous conclusions regarding the differences between the number of errors found in the use of checks by means of remote sensing and the number of errors found in the use of checks by means of classic on-site inspections. According to the applicant the Commission has been unable to demonstrate either what the alleged infringements consist in or how they could have led to a risk of losses for the EAGF. The applicant argues that Sweden selected the checks and in essence the risk analysis provided for by Article 31 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector and, therefore, Sweden did not expose the EAGF to the risks the Commission alleges. The Commission’s decision on a flat rate correction of 2 percent is thus, according to the applicant, contrary to Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Article 52 of Regulation No 130/2013.

In the event that the Court concludes that the risk analysis was not effective under Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1122/2009, the applicant argues in the alternative that there were no grounds for the Commission to apply a flat rate correction of 2 percent. Neither the magnitude of the alleged infringement, in the light of its nature and extent, nor the financial loss which the infringement could have caused for the EU can justify the amount of EUR 8 811 286,44 which was deducted from EU financing by the contested decision. The applicant argues that, with due diligence, it is possible to establish the amount equivalent to the risk which the infringement could have created. Using the flat rate correction at issue is thus contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and to the Commission’s Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee (Document No VI/5330/97) and the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, the amount resulting from the flat rate correction should be reduced.