- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-662/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Direct payments — Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice — Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 — Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Misuse of power — Legal certainty — Non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0662
62014TA0662
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
11.7.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 251/24
(Case T-662/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Common Agricultural Policy - Direct payments - Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice - Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Misuse of power - Legal certainty - Non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 251/26)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Parties
Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application for annulment of the part of the first sentence of Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1), which states the following: ‘by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous’.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Hungary to pay the costs.
*
Language of the case: Hungarian.
ECLI:EU:C:2016:140