- 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-32/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0032
62016TN0032
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
14.3.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 98/57
(Case T-32/16)
(2016/C 098/73)
Language of the case: Czech
Parties
Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 584 299,25 incurred by the Czech Republic,
—order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of 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.
—The Commission decided to exclude the expenditure from EU financing although there was no breach of EU or national law. It wrongly assumed that the application of a lower maximum age in the case of support for early retirement required a change of a rural development programme within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
2.Should the Court not uphold the first plea in law, the applicant puts forward a second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013.
—Even if the application of a lower maximum age in the case of support for early retirement without a change to a rural development programme constituted an infringement of Regulation No 1698/2005 (quod non), the Commission incorrectly assessed the importance of that infringement and the financial damage to the European Union. The importance of any infringement is minimal and there was no financial damage to the European Union.