19.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/40

—

Annul Article 1 of and the annex to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 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) in so far as payments amounting to EUR 1 964 861,71 chargeable to the EAGF made by the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas paying agency of the Federal Republic of Germany are excluded from Union funding, and

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law: no wrongful calculation and presentation of interest, alleging

an infringement of Article 31(1) in conjunction with Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (1) in conjunction with Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) (alternatively, Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 54(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (3) in conjunction with Article 29(f) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (4)), in so far as the payments from the funding were excluded, although the German authorities had complied with all of the relevant rules in a timely manner, in particular they had calculated and presented interest in compliance with the applicable rules in Table III in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (in the version of Regulation (EC) No 1233/2007 (5)).

2.

Second plea in law: failure to state reasons for the decision, alleging

an infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, since the Commission failed to sufficiently and coherently state the reasons why, in accordance with Article 31(1) in conjunction with Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in conjunction with Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 in the version of Regulation (EC) No 1233/2007, an obligation is imposed on the Member States to set out recoveries and corresponding interest in a single column and also prior to the determination of interest already relating to the period from 2006 to 2008 in the context of irregularities relating to export refunds in Table III in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 in the version of Regulation (EC) No 1233/2007 (although the existence of a claim for interest per se is not disputed). In addition, the Commission failed to sufficiently and coherently state the reasons why there is an infringement of the obligation to carry out key controls.

3.

Third plea in law: deadline under Article 31(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, alleging

an infringement of Article 31(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in so far as the Commission failed effectively to communicate the complaints (calculation and presentation of interest as well as absence of key controls), on which it based the exclusion of the expenditure, in writing, within 24 months following the date when the expenditure was incurred.

4.

Fourth plea in law: excessive duration of proceedings, alleging

an infringement of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006, Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1306/2013 and Article 34 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 in conjunction with the general legal principle that administrative proceedings should be conducted within a reasonable time, and infringement of the rights of the defence, since the proceedings before the Commission lasted too long.

5.

Fifth plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality, alleging

an infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 as well as of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission, by imposing a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission failed to take appropriate account of the nature and the scope of the supposed infringement and ignored the fact that not only was no financial damage actually caused to the Union, but that there was never even a real danger that such damage would occur and the applicant committed only a minor fault (if any). In addition, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality, in so far as it made a correction to the annual balance for 2010 without any apparent relation to the fiscal years 2006 to 2008 at issue.