Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1648

24.3.2025

(Case T-47/25)

(C/2025/1648)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, J. Langer and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2879 of 13 November 2024 (OJ L, 2024/2879, p. 1), insofar as it is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and for the financial year 2021 an amount of EUR 20 793 658,03 relating to expenditure incurred by accredited paying agencies of the Member States charged to the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund is declared, withdrawn from Union financing;

—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: the obligation to state reasons has not been fulfilled, in that the reason for the contested decision does not refer to the ground that the European Commission considers relevant under Article 54(5) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) since the decision is based on Article 54(5)(b) of that regulation, although the factual history shows, inter alia, that the Commission bases its decision exclusively on Article 54(5)(c) of that regulation.

2.Second plea in law: the contested decision is based on the incorrect application of Article 54(5)(c) of Regulation No 1306/2013:

—the European Commission bases its assertion that the non-recovery of the claim in question is due to the negligence of the Netherlands, on an incorrect reading of Articles 152 and 153 of Regulation No 1308/2013. (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) In its interpretation of those provisions, the Commission wrongly requires that the individual members of a producer organisation must be held (fully) liable for the debts of the producer organisation;

—the contested decision lacks a factual basis to substantiate the negligence alleged by the Commission;

—to date, the Netherlands has done everything in its power to reclaim the unduly paid subsidies and was thereby not negligent;

—there is no causal link between the negligence alleged by the Commission and the non-recovery within eight years.

3.Third plea in law: the contested decision is inaccurate or unreasonable because no extension of the recovery period under the third subparagraph of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 was permitted in 2021, with the result that the measures taken by the Netherlands authorities after 2021 have been discarded.

—

Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 549).

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 671).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1648/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—