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 C-721/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20, PB v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0721

62022CN0721

November 24, 2022
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

30.1.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/38

(Case C-721/22 P)

(2023/C 35/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: PB, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

set aside the first and third paragraphs of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20;

refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits in relation to the action for annulment; and

order PB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a ground of annulment alleging an error of law.

The Commission disputes the finding of the General Court which considers, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, that, on the basis of the reasoning in paragraphs 51 to 64 of that judgment, the PFI Regulation (1) ‘cannot therefore constitute on its own the relevant legal basis for the purposes of adopting administrative measures seeking the recovery of amounts unduly paid. …’

The General Court errs in law because Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation constitute an autonomous and sufficiently precise basis to adopt administrative measures of recovery, which are not a penalty.

In paragraph 69 of its judgment, the General Court, lastly, concluded that the joint application of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002 and Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation did not permit the adoption of a measure vis-à-vis the applicant at first instance, in so far as he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments.

According to the Commission, the General Court errs in law because Article 7 of the PFI Regulation, applied in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation and Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002, constitutes a sufficiently clear and precise provision to allow recovery from the applicant at first instance, even though he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

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