# C_2015146EN.01004101.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/41

---

Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-118/15)

(2015/C 146/55)

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by L. Bembič, državni pravobranilec (legal representative of the State))

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Or, if the Court should not grant the request of the Republic of Slovenia set out above, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure, in the amount exceeding the sum of EUR 4 3 50  407,62; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2014) 10135) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, more particularly as regards the financial correction of EUR 8 7 00  815,25, adopted on account of an irregularity for the financial year 2009 concerning the Sugar-restructuring Fund measure, in the amount exceeding the sum of EUR 4 3 50  407,62;

| — | order the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the parties to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea: misapplication of the TFEU, or of a legal rule relating to its application, manifest error of assessment, inadequate reasons given for the decision and breach of the principle audi alteram partem

  The applicant maintains, in that regard, that the Commission erred in its finding that the silos are an integral part of the production plant and that the applicant ought, therefore, to have dismantled them on the basis of the comprehensive restructuring plan. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea: misapplication of the TFEU, or of a legal rule relating to its application, manifest error of assessment, inadequate reasons given for the decision and breach of the principle audi alteram partem

audi alteram partem

The applicant maintains, in that regard, that the Commission erred in its finding that the silos are an integral part of the production plant and that the applicant ought, therefore, to have dismantled them on the basis of the comprehensive restructuring plan.

| 2. | Second plea: breach of the principles of legality, of cooperation in good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti

  In this respect, the applicant argues that if the Commission, before 8 August 2008 (the date on which the applicant approved an amendment to the restructuring plan concerning the preservation of the silos), had answered the applicant’s written question about the preservation of certain structures, if it had amended and supplemented Regulation No 968/2006 (1) and if, having received the communication relating to the alteration of the restructuring programme, it had informed the applicant of the alleged irregularity concerning the preservation of the silos, or if it had written to all the Member States informing them of its interpretation of the unclear provisions of the relevant legislation, the financial correction at issue would not have been made and the contested decision would not have been adopted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: breach of the principles of legality, of cooperation in good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti

patere legem quam ipse fecisti

In this respect, the applicant argues that if the Commission, before 8 August 2008 (the date on which the applicant approved an amendment to the restructuring plan concerning the preservation of the silos), had answered the applicant’s written question about the preservation of certain structures, if it had amended and supplemented Regulation No 968/2006 (1) and if, having received the communication relating to the alteration of the restructuring programme, it had informed the applicant of the alleged irregularity concerning the preservation of the silos, or if it had written to all the Member States informing them of its interpretation of the unclear provisions of the relevant legislation, the financial correction at issue would not have been made and the contested decision would not have been adopted.

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32).

1

---