# C_2018408EN.01005601.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/56

---

Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-530/18)

(2018/C 408/73)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: C. Canţăr, E. Gane, C. Florescu and O. Ichim, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns (a) sub-measure 1a in its entirety (the sum of EUR 13 184 846,61 for the years 2015 and 2016) and (b) sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in their entirety (the sum of EUR 45 532 000,96 for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016) or, in the alternative, in part, in respect of the period prior to 19 September 2015 (the sum of EUR 21 315 857,50); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns (a) sub-measure 1a in its entirety (the sum of EUR 13 184 846,61 for the years 2015 and 2016) and (b) sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in their entirety (the sum of EUR 45 532 000,96 for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016) or, in the alternative, in part, in respect of the period prior to 19 September 2015 (the sum of EUR 21 315 857,50);

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

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 a misuse by the European Commission of its powers to exclude sums from European Union financing






  — | By applying the corrections established by Decision 2018/873, the Commission misused its powers, thereby infringing Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a misuse by the European Commission of its powers to exclude sums from European Union financing

—

By applying the corrections established by Decision 2018/873, the Commission misused its powers, thereby infringing Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

| — | The contested decision infringes Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 in so far as the Commission, following discussions held with the Romanian authorities, decided to approve the revision of National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2007-2013, expressing its consent with regard to the measures set out in that NRDP, including the methodologies relating to payments concerning sub-measures 1a, 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in the context of measure 215 — Animal welfare payments. The decision approving the revision of the NRDP is a legal commitment and entails making payments from the EU budget. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision infringes Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 in so far as the Commission, following discussions held with the Romanian authorities, decided to approve the revision of National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2007-2013, expressing its consent with regard to the measures set out in that NRDP, including the methodologies relating to payments concerning sub-measures 1a, 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in the context of measure 215 — Animal welfare payments. The decision approving the revision of the NRDP is a legal commitment and entails making payments from the EU budget.

| — | The Romanian authorities made payments in accordance with the approval given by the Commission. Against that background, the decision to apply the corrections is unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Romanian authorities made payments in accordance with the approval given by the Commission. Against that background, the decision to apply the corrections is unlawful.

| — | Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the Commission’s decision to approve the revision of the NRDP gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the Romanian authorities and the beneficiaries with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation approved by the Commission. That principle requires that, with regard to sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b, the Commission apply the corrections as from 19 September 2015, as it did with regard to the corrections concerning sub-measure 1a. |
| --- | --- |

—

Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the Commission’s decision to approve the revision of the NRDP gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the Romanian authorities and the beneficiaries with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation approved by the Commission. That principle requires that, with regard to sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b, the Commission apply the corrections as from 19 September 2015, as it did with regard to the corrections concerning sub-measure 1a.

| — | Similarly, Romania considers that that EU institution should also have observed that principle with regard to the payments made after 19 September 2015, given that, at that point, further revision of the NRDP was no longer possible. |
| --- | --- |

—

Similarly, Romania considers that that EU institution should also have observed that principle with regard to the payments made after 19 September 2015, given that, at that point, further revision of the NRDP was no longer possible.

| — | Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty as a result of the Commission taking a different position with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation used. Thus, by the contested decision, the Commission found that the payments made according to the methods of calculation which it had previously approved were irregular. Moreover, although the Romanian authorities requested clarification from that EU institution with regard to the possibility of correcting errors regarding compensatory payments, given that the NRDP could not be revised after 19 September 2015, the Commission did not set out its position with regard to that issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty as a result of the Commission taking a different position with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation used. Thus, by the contested decision, the Commission found that the payments made according to the methods of calculation which it had previously approved were irregular. Moreover, although the Romanian authorities requested clarification from that EU institution with regard to the possibility of correcting errors regarding compensatory payments, given that the NRDP could not be revised after 19 September 2015, the Commission did not set out its position with regard to that issue.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union






  — | Romania considers that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as, in the case of sub-measure 1a, that EU institution did not provide sufficient and appropriate reasons for: (i) its changing position as regards the irregularities found and the type of correction applied; (ii) its rejection of the arguments and explanations put forward by the Romanian authorities as regards the alleged overcompensation; and (iii) its choice to apply a flat rate in respect of the irregularities found, instead of a calculated rate. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

—

Romania considers that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as, in the case of sub-measure 1a, that EU institution did not provide sufficient and appropriate reasons for: (i) its changing position as regards the irregularities found and the type of correction applied; (ii) its rejection of the arguments and explanations put forward by the Romanian authorities as regards the alleged overcompensation; and (iii) its choice to apply a flat rate in respect of the irregularities found, instead of a calculated rate.

---