7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/18

(Case T-3/11)

2011/C 139/36

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the Commission’s Decision of 4 November 2010 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), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as under the reason ‘Weaknesses in LPIS-GIS [Land Parcel Identification System and Geographic Information System respectively] system, performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions’ it applied financial corrections to several measures, excluding from European Union financing the sum of EUR 40 690 655,11 relating to expenditure incurred by the applicant in the financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward 10 pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take account of information produced by the Portuguese authorities concerning the checks made in connection with the LPIS-GIS, on the basis of the risk analysis, in accordance with Article 27 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take account of information produced by the Portuguese authorities concerning the intensification of the checks made in connection with the LPIS-GIS in accordance with Article 26 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take account of information produced by the Portuguese authorities concerning the checks made in connection with the LPIS-GIS in accordance with the 75 %/90 % rule referred to in Article 24(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in finding serious and reasonable doubts as to the existence of inconclusive and/or poor checks, on the sole basis of a single special case in which a motorway was included in the eligible area.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in applying the ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts’ laid down in Document VI/5330/1997-PT, with the consequent non-observance of the principle of the equality of Member States.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in applying financial corrections over and above the expenditure under the Single Payment Scheme (‘the SPS’), financial year 2006, so including all the measures relating to the first and second pillars.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in failing to take into consideration the factors relating to the ‘Calculation of Sanctions’ in the light of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities showing fulfilment of the obligations under Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004, and shows also that there was no risk for the Fund, so that on this point too the contested decision constitutes a breach of the principle of proportionality.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in levelling a charge of deliberate failure to fulfil obligations in the light of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, which shows that the obligations under Article 53 of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 were wholly fulfilled.

9.Ninth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission in that it failed to take into account the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, showing compliance with Article 21 of Regulation No 2237/2003 for the year 2004 and with Article 13(5) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 for the year 2005, concerning checks on the minimum density of nut trees.

10.Tenth plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Commission relating to the corrections affecting amounts paid in connection with the Additional Amounts of Aid measure — meat premiums and SPS payments for special rights.