- 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-387/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Italy v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0387
62012TN0387
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 319/15
(Case T-387/12)
2012/C 319/28
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the European Commission implementing decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2012 (notified under document C(2012) 3838), 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), in so far as that decision is the object of the present action;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The scope of the present action is limited to the flat-rate financial corrections applied to the Italian Republic in relation to the aid scheme for growers of processing tomatoes, for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103) and of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2005 L 209, p. 1).
By that plea, the applicant challenges the application of the financial corrections made by the contested decision, equal to 2 % of expenditure, submitting that those corrections were applied notwithstanding the proof, acknowledged by the Commission, that no significant financial damage was caused.
In addition, the applicant disputes the quantification of the corrections themselves in so far as their actual determination is disproportionate and manifestly illogical, since they are considerably higher than the potential damage resulting from the conduct attributed to the Italian authorities.