15.7.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/12

—

(Case C-404/19P)

(2019/C 238/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

—Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, in Case T-26/18, France v Commission;

—Give final judgment in the matter by annulling Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), in so far as it imposes on France a flat-rate correction of 100 % on account of deficiencies in the control system for area aid in Haute-Corse;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Government asks the Court to set aside in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismisses its action with regard to the part of the contested decision which concerns the ‘Control system gravely deficient Corse’ for the years 2013 and 2014, in that it applies a flat-rate correction of 100 % on account of deficiencies in the control system for area aid in Haute-Corse.

In support of its appeal, the French Government relies on a single ground of appeal alleging error of law. It is submitted that the General Court relied on an erroneous interpretation of the conditions provided for in point 3.2.5 of the 2015 guidelines for setting a correction rate higher than 25 %. It is claimed that the General Court confused the evidence to be adduced in the situation where the grant of aid is devoid of any legal basis or misinterprets rules of EU law, and the case where the deficiencies in the control system are sufficiently grave as to allow it to be assumed that the aid has been granted in breach of EU law. The General Court therefore wrongly held that the exclusion of all expenditure from EU funding was justified and that the flat-rate correction of 100 % was well founded.

—

(1) OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61.