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-62/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Estonia v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0062

62022TN0062

January 28, 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

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/32

(Case T-62/22)

(2022/C 148/43)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicants: Republic of Estonia (represented by: M. Kriisa)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the European Commission’s Implementing Decision of 17 November 2021, in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 634 057,30;

order the defendant 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 — the applicant submits that the European Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 21 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014, (1) read in conjunction with Article 30 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, (2) and thus came to the incorrect conclusion that the system for the submission of aid applications in Estonia does not comply with those provisions.

2.Second plea in law — according to the applicant, the European Commission interpreted Article 30(2) of Regulation No 640/2014 in an arbitrary manner and, consequently, applied it incorrectly.

3.Third plea in law — the applicant submits that the European Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons and the principle of good administration, since it was not able to provide sufficiently clear reasons why the animal replacement as authorised in Estonia does not comply with EU law.

* Language of the case: Estonian.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).

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