# C_2015171EN.01002801.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 4 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-117/15)

(2015/C 171/33)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: Kristi Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 (Ares(2014)4324235) declining to amend European Commission Decision 2006/776/EC on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated( 1 ); |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to point 2 of Chapter 4 of Annex IV to the Act of Accession( 2 ) in conjunction with Article 58 of the Act of Accession
—
According to the applicant, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450) that Commission Decision 2006/776 was contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession even from the time of its adoption, and the Commission should have amended it. Since, in the contested decision, the Commission declined to amend Decision 2006/776, the contested decision too is contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession. | — | According to the applicant, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450) that Commission Decision 2006/776 was contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession even from the time of its adoption, and the Commission should have amended it. Since, in the contested decision, the Commission declined to amend Decision 2006/776, the contested decision too is contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | According to the applicant, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450) that Commission Decision 2006/776 was contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession even from the time of its adoption, and the Commission should have amended it. Since, in the contested decision, the Commission declined to amend Decision 2006/776, the contested decision too is contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration
—
According to the applicant, the Commission is under an obligation, pursuant to the principle of good administration, to apply legal acts in accordance with the interpretations given by the Court of Justice. Since the Commission did not bring Decision 2006/776 into harmony with EU law, deriving from the judgments of the General Court in Czech Republic v Commission (T-248/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:170) and Lithuania v Commission (T-262/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:171) and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450), it thus infringed the principle of good administration. | — | According to the applicant, the Commission is under an obligation, pursuant to the principle of good administration, to apply legal acts in accordance with the interpretations given by the Court of Justice. Since the Commission did not bring Decision 2006/776 into harmony with EU law, deriving from the judgments of the General Court in Czech Republic v Commission (T-248/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:170) and Lithuania v Commission (T-262/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:171) and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450), it thus infringed the principle of good administration. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | According to the applicant, the Commission is under an obligation, pursuant to the principle of good administration, to apply legal acts in accordance with the interpretations given by the Court of Justice. Since the Commission did not bring Decision 2006/776 into harmony with EU law, deriving from the judgments of the General Court in Czech Republic v Commission (T-248/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:170) and Lithuania v Commission (T-262/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:171) and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450), it thus infringed the principle of good administration. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
—
According to the applicant, the contested decision and Decision 2006/776 are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since Estonia cannot rely against individuals on Regulation (EC) No 60/2004( 3 ) and its obligations under those decisions are confined to payment into the EU budget and do not make it possible to attain the objectives of the system of eliminating surplus stocks of sugar. | — | According to the applicant, the contested decision and Decision 2006/776 are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since Estonia cannot rely against individuals on Regulation (EC) No 60/2004( 3 ) and its obligations under those decisions are confined to payment into the EU budget and do not make it possible to attain the objectives of the system of eliminating surplus stocks of sugar. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | According to the applicant, the contested decision and Decision 2006/776 are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since Estonia cannot rely against individuals on Regulation (EC) No 60/2004( 3 ) and its obligations under those decisions are confined to payment into the EU budget and do not make it possible to attain the objectives of the system of eliminating surplus stocks of sugar. | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s DG Agriculture and Rural Development lacked competence to adopt the contested decision
—
The applicant claims that the decision whether to amend Commission Decision 2006/776 should have been adopted by the college of commissioners. It is a decision of principle whose adoption may not be delegated. | — | The applicant claims that the decision whether to amend Commission Decision 2006/776 should have been adopted by the college of commissioners. It is a decision of principle whose adoption may not be delegated. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims that the decision whether to amend Commission Decision 2006/776 should have been adopted by the college of commissioners. It is a decision of principle whose adoption may not be delegated. | | |

---

( 1 )  Commission Decision 2006/776/EC of 13 November 2006 on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (OJ 2006 L 314, p. 35).

( 2 )  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).

( 3 )  Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).

---