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-56/22: Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0056

62022TN0056

January 26, 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

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/11

(Case T-56/22)

(2022/C 158/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Baxter, Agent, and T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the defendant’s Implementing Decision (EU) No 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union’s financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of ‘active farmer — connected companies’; and

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (2) is wrong. In the applicant’s view, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 is concerned only with direct payments to farmers (as defined in Article 4 of the aforementioned Regulation) who themselves operate the relevant infrastructure or services. The applicant maintains that the defendant held wrongly because:

ii. There is no purposive or teleological basis for the Commission’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which does not accord with the purposes of this article.

(1) OJ 2021, L 413, p. 3.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).

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