# C_2021329EN.01001501.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

---

Appeal brought on 29 June 2021 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-543/19 Romania v Commission

(Case C-401/21 P)

(2021/C 329/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L.-E. Baţagoi, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Romania claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-543/19 in its entirety, re-hear Case T-543/19, upholding the action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4027 final, inasmuch as the Commission applied a co-financing rate of 75 %, not 85 %, for priority axes 1 and 2 of the operational programme,
  or |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-543/19 in its entirety, re-hear Case T-543/19, upholding the action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4027 final, inasmuch as the Commission applied a co-financing rate of 75 %, not 85 %, for priority axes 1 and 2 of the operational programme,

or

| — | allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-543/19 in its entirety and refer Case T-543/19 back to the General Court which, in re-hearing the case, is to uphold the action for annulment and annul in part Commission Decision C(2019) 4027 final, inasmuch as the Commission applied a co-financing rate of 75 %, not 85 %, for priority axes 1 and 2 of the operational programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-543/19 in its entirety and refer Case T-543/19 back to the General Court which, in re-hearing the case, is to uphold the action for annulment and annul in part Commission Decision C(2019) 4027 final, inasmuch as the Commission applied a co-financing rate of 75 %, not 85 %, for priority axes 1 and 2 of the operational programme;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, Romania relies on three grounds:

| A. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 139(6)(a) of Regulation 1303/2013 read in conjunction with Article 137(1)(a) and (d) and (2), Article 131, Article 135(2) and Article 139(1), (2) and (7) of that regulation

  Romania submits that the General Court made several errors of law as regards the distinction between the final application for interim payment and the acceptance of accounts, in unduly disregarding the role of that latter stage and taking the view that the co-financing rate applicable for calculating the amount chargeable is that in force at the time of submission of the final application for interim payment. |
| --- | --- |

A.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 139(6)(a) of Regulation 1303/2013 read in conjunction with Article 137(1)(a) and (d) and (2), Article 131, Article 135(2) and Article 139(1), (2) and (7) of that regulation

Romania submits that the General Court made several errors of law as regards the distinction between the final application for interim payment and the acceptance of accounts, in unduly disregarding the role of that latter stage and taking the view that the co-financing rate applicable for calculating the amount chargeable is that in force at the time of submission of the final application for interim payment.

| B. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of the accounting principle of annuality

  Romania submits that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the accounting principle of annuality, when it established that to apply to the expenditure carried out in the course of an accounting year, and entered in the accounting system, a co-financing rate adopted after the final application for interim payment was submitted would be tantamount to infringing the principle of annuality. |
| --- | --- |

B.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of the accounting principle of annuality

Romania submits that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the accounting principle of annuality, when it established that to apply to the expenditure carried out in the course of an accounting year, and entered in the accounting system, a co-financing rate adopted after the final application for interim payment was submitted would be tantamount to infringing the principle of annuality.

| C. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of non-retroactivity

  Romania submits that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of non-retroactivity, when it established that the co-financing rate provided for by implementing decision C(2018)8890 final of 12 December 2018 does not apply to the expenditure carried out in the course of the accounting year 2017-2018, since the legal situation of Romania had already become established when that rate entered into force — 12 December 2018 — in the sense that the accounting year had concluded on 30 June 2018, and the final application for interim payment was sent on 6 July 2018. |
| --- | --- |

C.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of non-retroactivity

Romania submits that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of non-retroactivity, when it established that the co-financing rate provided for by implementing decision C(2018)8890 final of 12 December 2018 does not apply to the expenditure carried out in the course of the accounting year 2017-2018, since the legal situation of Romania had already become established when that rate entered into force — 12 December 2018 — in the sense that the accounting year had concluded on 30 June 2018, and the final application for interim payment was sent on 6 July 2018.

---