# C_2016038EN.01003301.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/33

---

Appeal brought on 16 November 2015 by Romania against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2015 in Case T-784/14, Romania v Commission

Romania

Commission

(Case C-599/15 P)

(2016/C 038/46)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, A. Buzoianu, E. Gane and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | I. declare the appeal admissible, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-784/14 in its entirety and rule afresh in respect of Case T-784/14 by declaring the application for annulment to be admissible and by annulling letter BUDG/B3/MV D (2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014;
  or
  declare the appeal admissible, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-784/14 in its entirety and refer Case T-784/14 back to the General Court in order that the latter may declare the application for annulment admissible and annul letter BUDG/B3/MV D (2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

I. declare the appeal admissible, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-784/14 in its entirety and rule afresh in respect of Case T-784/14 by declaring the application for annulment to be admissible and by annulling letter BUDG/B3/MV D (2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014;

or

declare the appeal admissible, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-784/14 in its entirety and refer Case T-784/14 back to the General Court in order that the latter may declare the application for annulment admissible and annul letter BUDG/B3/MV D (2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014;

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

—

II. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | First ground — Procedural irregularities before the General Court harming the interests of the Romanian State

  Romania takes the view that the order under appeal was made in breach of Article 130(7) and (8) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
  The General Court, it submits, failed to determine, and did not provide proper reasons, whether it was necessary to examine the objection of inadmissibility together with the examination of the substance.
  Although the General Court decided that joint examination of the objection of inadmissibility and the substance was not justified, it found that the legal context under which the obligation for Romania to pay arose came under the rules set out in Decision 2007/436 (1) and Regulation No 1150/2000, (2) and ruled that the Romanian State had an obligation arising under those provisions to determine and pay the amount of EUR 14 883,79 as traditional own resources.
  By analysing the nature and basis of the payment obligation, the General Court ruled on the substance of the case and, in doing so, acted at variance with its decision to rule exclusively on the objection of inadmissibility. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground — Procedural irregularities before the General Court harming the interests of the Romanian State

First ground — Procedural irregularities before the General Court harming the interests of the Romanian State

Romania takes the view that the order under appeal was made in breach of Article 130(7) and (8) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

The General Court, it submits, failed to determine, and did not provide proper reasons, whether it was necessary to examine the objection of inadmissibility together with the examination of the substance.

Although the General Court decided that joint examination of the objection of inadmissibility and the substance was not justified, it found that the legal context under which the obligation for Romania to pay arose came under the rules set out in Decision 2007/436 (1) and Regulation No 1150/2000, (2) and ruled that the Romanian State had an obligation arising under those provisions to determine and pay the amount of EUR 14 883,79 as traditional own resources.

1

2

By analysing the nature and basis of the payment obligation, the General Court ruled on the substance of the case and, in doing so, acted at variance with its decision to rule exclusively on the objection of inadmissibility.

| 2. | Second ground — Breach of EU law by the General Court

  Romania takes the view that the General Court erred in classifying the nature of the obligations attributed to it by letter BUDG/B3/MV D(2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014, thereby committing an error of law which affected the General Court’s analysis of (i) the assessment of the Commission’s power and (ii) the nature of the disputed letter.
  In the alternative, Romania takes the view that the General Court infringed EU law and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in concluding that it is for the Member States to determine whether there is a loss of traditional own resources, as well as the existence of an obligation to pay such resources.
  In addition, Romania disputes the applicability of the mechanism of interim payment in the present case and, in that respect, the related findings of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground — Breach of EU law by the General Court

Second ground — Breach of EU law by the General Court

Romania takes the view that the General Court erred in classifying the nature of the obligations attributed to it by letter BUDG/B3/MV D(2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014, thereby committing an error of law which affected the General Court’s analysis of (i) the assessment of the Commission’s power and (ii) the nature of the disputed letter.

In the alternative, Romania takes the view that the General Court infringed EU law and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in concluding that it is for the Member States to determine whether there is a loss of traditional own resources, as well as the existence of an obligation to pay such resources.

In addition, Romania disputes the applicability of the mechanism of interim payment in the present case and, in that respect, the related findings of the General Court.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 17).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).

2

---