Action brought on 9 July 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-286/04)

(2004/C 251/46)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Mr R. Thompson QC and Mr S. Grodzinski Barrister with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission's Decision 2004/451 was taken within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) 1258/1999 (2) on the financing of the common agricultural policy. By the contested Article 2 the Commission decided to disjoin the accounts of, among others, the paying agencies referred to by the applicant, and make those accounts the subject of a future clearance decision.

The applicant contends that, as far as those agencies are concerned, the decision to disjoin their accounts was made on the sole or principal basis that the ‘sampling’ methodology used by the United Kingdom's National Audit Office for the purposes of preparing its audit report and certificates for the 2003 accounts, was different from the particular sampling methodology suggested for use in Guideline 8.

In support of its application the applicant first of all submits that the Commission has no legal competence to require national certifying bodies to conform to the methodology laid down in a Guideline, where it accepts that the criteria laid down in Regulation 1258/99 as well as Regulation 1663/1995 (3), have been met. The applicant further contends that the Commission has misdirected itself in law by interpreting its own Guideline as a binding rule of law. Even were it to be decided, contrary to the applicant's submissions, that the Guideline is in principle capable of laying down a binding rule of law, the applicant argues that it is at least ambiguous in its meaning and the Commission's interpretation is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. The applicant also alleges that in the light of the history of the matter, the conduct of the Commission in seeking to impose its own interpretation of Guideline 8 is contrary to the protection of legitimate expectations. Moreover, the Commission's attempt to control the way in which the United Kingdom National Audit Office exercises its expertise is, according to the applicant, contrary to the principle of subsidiarity laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty and manifested by Article 3 paragraph 1 of Regulation 1663/95. Finally, the applicant submits that, to the extent that it may be argued by the Commission that the contested decision was based on other considerations, it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

(1)  OJ L 155, 30/04/2004, p. 129-133.

(2)  OJ L 160, 26/06/1999, p. 103-112.

(3)  Commission Regulation (REGULATION) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158, 08/07/1995, p. 6.