- 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-139/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hungary v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0139
62015TN0139
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
Official Journal of the European Union
JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
8.6.2015
(Case T-139/15)
(2015/C 190/20)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Parties
Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and A. Pálfy, Agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—Set aside in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 53 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, with regard to Hungary, it excludes from European Union financing EUR 1 1 7 09 400 in relation to the sugar restructuring fund.
—Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant rejects the requirement which the Commission considers to apply, but which does not appear expressly in the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-187/12 and C-189/12 SFIR and Others, according to which the time of presentation of the aid application to which the exclusion contained in the contested decision refers is important for the purposes of examining the applicability of the exceptions contained in the judgment. That conclusion, according to the applicant, is contrary to the logic of the restructuring programme and, moreover, completely overlooks the seasonal nature of sugar production and calls into question the practical applicability of the exceptions.
Furthermore, the applicant considers that, although the Commission’s legal interpretation may be correct, as regards the legislation on restructuring aid — in particular the classification of silos — difficulties of interpretation have arisen, so that, given the uncertainty, the Commission acted in accordance with the law in reducing the amount excluded from European Union financing, having regard to the difficulties of interpretation inherent in the EU legislation, or completely disregarding the exclusion.