10.8.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/13

—

(Case C-185/20 P)

(2020/C 262/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-505/18 of 12 February 2020;

—annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 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 the part concerning Hungary, which excludes from EU financing the aid granted to producer groups which have qualified recognition;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Hungarian Government bases its appeal, in essence, on two arguments according to the criteria established in the case-law of the Court of Justice.

In the first place, as regards the first ground of its appeal, the Hungarian Government submits that the General Court failed to take proper account of the arguments put forward by Hungary and misinterpreted the arguments made in the application and presented at the hearing. The General Court somewhat simplified and failed to respond to Hungary’s argument that conversion into a qualified producer group presupposes a profound transformation of the producer group and, where necessary, changes to the group’s composition. Where aid is granted to a group that has taken the form of a qualified producer group, it is not granted to the original group, but to a new entity that also meets the objectives laid down in the regulation (to facilitate the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups). The General Court did not respond to that argument on the substance and failed to examine the relationship between qualified producer groups and producer groups.

In the second place, as regards the second ground of its appeal, the Hungarian Government submits that the General Court also erred in law in a way that resulted in a significant infringement of its procedural rights. The statement of reasons for the judgment under appeal is manifestly inadequate in respect of legal certainty, which formed part of the second plea in law, and in respect of the argument put forward, according to the General Court, only a posteriori at the hearing and, in essence, the General Court confined itself to stating its position purely declaratively, without any kind of reasoning.

The General Court ought to have examined the period covered by the exclusion and interpreted to that effect Article 52(4)(c) and/or (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, (*) even if it considered that the Hungarian Government had not duly substantiated the link between that issue and the second plea in law, including the link to the principle of legal certainty. However, on that point, the General Court misinterpreted EU law, specifically Article 52(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, by failing to regard that provision as an issue to be examined of its own motion.

Lastly, the Hungarian Government concludes its line of argument relating to the second ground of appeal with certain additional observations regarding infringement of the principle of proportionality.

(*) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

—