13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/56

(Case T-15/23)

(2023/C 94/68)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L.-E. Baţagoi, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2261 of 11 November 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) (1) in so far as representing one-off financial corrections applied to Romania on the ground of the infringement of EU law in connection with payments in claim years 2018 and 2019 (financial years 2019 and 2020) — in the amount of EUR 2 515 141,78;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging the inappropriate exercise by the Commission of its power to exclude sums from EU financing on the basis of Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013

The Commission erred in assessing that — as regards measure 10 (on the basis of which agri-environment-climate payments are granted) and measure 13 (on the basis of which payments are granted for areas facing natural or other specific constraints) of the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2014-2020 — the Romanian authorities had infringed Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation 640/2014. The EU institution erroneously found that the maximum eligible area was calculated in accordance with the administrative limits of the unităţi administrativ teritoriale (UAT) (administrative territorial units), leading to payments for ineligible areas. In addition, the Commission erred when assessing that — as regards measure 8, sub-measure 8.1 (on the basis of which support for afforestation is granted) of the NRDP 2014-2020 — the Romanian authorities had infringed Article 30 of Regulation 1306/2013 and Article 28(1)(b) of Regulation 809/2014, on the ground that there was double financing between the payment relating to the loss of agricultural income in the context of measure 8, sub-measure 8.1 and the greening payment. The EU institution erroneously found that those two payments were of the same nature and compensated the same costs.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Commission failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since it failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its finding that the alleged infringements existed and failed to indicate in a satisfactory manner why the arguments consistently relied upon and restated by the Romanian authorities, competent in the context of the administrative dialogue which preceded the adoption of the contested decision, could not be accepted.

Notified to the Romanian authorities on 14 November 2022 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2002 L 299, p. 20) (‘Decision 2022/2261’).