Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1087

(Case C-896/24 P)

(C/2025/1087)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Hungary claims in its appeal before the Court of Justice that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2024 in Case T-499/22;

—annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 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);

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: financial correction resulting from the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013 regarding the ‘active farmer’ status is contrary to the law

In its judgment, the General Court reached an incorrect conclusion relating to the interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013. (1) The General Court did not give appropriate weight either to a systematic interpretation or a teleological interpretation of the provision at issue, and it allowed the erroneous conclusion derived from its literal interpretation to prevail over such interpretations. Neither Article 9(2) itself, nor its wording, nor its literal interpretation allow for an interpretation with such a broad scope as that provided by the General Court for that article, while a systematic interpretation and an interpretation of Article 9(2), in conjunction with paragraph 1 thereof, and Article 4(1)(a) of the regulation expressly preclude the inclusion of associated companies in the concept of a group of natural or legal persons.

Nor is a broad interpretation of Article 9(2) necessary in order to prevent abuses or to attain the objectives of that regulation, and, in actual fact, such an interpretation is the result of refuting Article 60 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the interpretation of that provision provided by the Court of Justice, and of a situation of alleged abuse.

Second ground of appeal: financial correction based on an incorrect interpretation and application of Article 59(5) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of Article 35 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 regarding the samples to be taken into account in order to increase the percentage of on-the-spot checks is contrary to the law

With regard to the second ground of appeal, the Hungarian Government claims that the judgment does not contain an adequate statement of reasons as to why the errors detected in the elements selected following a risk analysis must be included in the samples to be taken into account in order to increase the percentage of on-the-spot checks. The judgment does not provide an adequate response to the Hungarian Government’s claims in that regard and imposes an interpretation that does not necessarily follow from the relevant EU legislation.

* Language of the case: Hungarian.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1087/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15