Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/8

—

(Case C-273/13 P)

2013/C 215/11

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered on 27 February 2013 by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission;

—annul Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 (notified under document No C(2010) 1317) 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) (OJ 2010 L 63 of 12.03.2010, p. 7), in so far as that decision excludes from Community financing the amounts of PLN 279 794 442,15 and EUR 25 583 996,81 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland sets out the following grounds contesting the judgment under appeal:

1.Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that that provision requires the introduction of a fully vectorised LPIS-GIS system (system for identifying parcels of agricultural land on the basis of a computer-assisted geographical information system) or of an equivalent system, even though a full vectorisation is not necessary for the purpose of satisfying the system standards envisaged in that provision.

2.Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that the penalties for an intentional breach are to be imposed even if the intentional nature of the recipient’s actions has not been conclusively established.

3.Ground of appeal alleging inadequate grounds for the judgment under appeal. In the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain which of the substantive and formal requirements arising under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 had in fact not been met. The General Court also failed to establish to what extent the possibility of establishing the intentional nature of the action by way of judicial proceedings may have led to an incompatibility of the payment system introduced by the Polish authorities with the objectives of the common agricultural policy. Furthermore, in the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain how the calculations carried out by the Polish authorities as to the actual risks faced by the fund were inconsistent.

4.Ground of appeal alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the right to equitable proceedings by reason of the failure to take account of evidence adduced by the Republic of Poland and by reason of the fact that the General Court went beyond the subject-matter of the dispute. The General Court failed to appraise the evidence and explanations relating to the system for determining eligibility for area aid submitted by the Republic of Poland and did not explain the standard for the scope of the investigation in Opole Province (Województwo opolskie). Furthermore, the General Court extended its examination beyond the scope of what had constituted the subject-matter of the Commission’s complaints and beyond the basis on which the Commission had adopted the contested decision.

—