EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-356/24: Action brought on 16 July 2024 – Republic of Lithuania v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0356

62024TN0356

July 16, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/5424

(Case T-356/24)

(C/2024/5424)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: S. Grigonis, V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė and K. Dieninis)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2024) 3171 final on the reduction of the amount of the first instalment of the non-repayable support for Lithuania;

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 24(8) of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 (1), the principles of proportionality and legal certainty as well as the principle of fiscal autonomy of Member States, on the ground that the Commission erred in concluding that the requirement that, based on the publication of a cost-benefit analysis, draft amendments to the relevant tax laws are to be drafted and submitted to the parliament has not been satisfactorily complied with.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 24(8) of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 as well as the principle of legal certainty on the ground that the Commission erred in concluding that the requirement to publish a cost-benefit analysis of existing tax exemptions and of special tax regimes that are not effective and (or) no longer reflect the priorities of the State(s) and (or) do not comply with the Green Deal, has not been satisfactorily complied with.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 24(8) of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 as well was the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and proportionality, on the ground that in order to calculate the amount of the reduction in the financial contribution, the Commission unlawfully and incorrectly applied the methodology set out in its communication of 21 February 2023 (2) and disproportionately reduced the amount of the financial contribution.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17).

(2) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 21 February 2023 – Recovery and Resilience Facility: Two years on. A unique instrument at the heart of the EU’s green and digital transformation (COM(2023) 99 final).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5424/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia