# C_2020103EN.01003701.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/37

---

Action brought on 7 February 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-76/20)

(2020/C 103/52)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) CCI 2014CZ06RDNP 001 of 29 November 2019 on the suspension of interim payments linked to the Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020 and related to the expenditure incurred in the periods between 16 October 2018 and 31 December 2018 and between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2019 (notified under number C(2019) 8647 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) CCI 2014CZ06RDNP 001 of 29 November 2019 on the suspension of interim payments linked to the Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020 and related to the expenditure incurred in the periods between 16 October 2018 and 31 December 2018 and between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2019 (notified under number C(2019) 8647 final);

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Regulation No 1306/2013’) on the grounds that the Commission incorrectly takes the view that the subsidies to which the expenditure in question relates were provided in breach of national legislation. However, there could not have been any infringement of the national legislation concerned since that legislation does not apply to the type of subsidies which the suspended payments concern. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Regulation No 1306/2013’) on the grounds that the Commission incorrectly takes the view that the subsidies to which the expenditure in question relates were provided in breach of national legislation. However, there could not have been any infringement of the national legislation concerned since that legislation does not apply to the type of subsidies which the suspended payments concern.

| 2. | Second plea in law, also alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if the national legislation concerned were to apply to that type of subsidy (quod non), part of the suspended payments relate to projects to which that legislation could not apply ratione temporis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, also alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if the national legislation concerned were to apply to that type of subsidy (quod non), part of the suspended payments relate to projects to which that legislation could not apply ratione temporis.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

---