# C_2021263EN.01002501.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/25

---

Action brought on 28 April 2021 — Bulgaria v Commission

(Case T-235/21)

(2021/C 263/34)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: Ts. Mitova and L. Zaharieva)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/261 of 17 February 2021 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), (1) in so far as its budget item 6200 excludes from European Union financing under the EAGF expenditure incurred by the Republic of Bulgaria in the amount of EUR 7 656 848,97, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/261 of 17 February 2021 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), (1) in so far as its budget item 6200 excludes from European Union financing under the EAGF expenditure incurred by the Republic of Bulgaria in the amount of EUR 7 656 848,97, and

| — | 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 five pleas in law:

| 1. | Infringement of Article 52 of Regulation 1306/2013, (2) read in conjunction with Article 34 of Regulation 908/2014 (3) and the 2015 Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections, (4) of the rights of the defence and of the principles of sincere cooperation, the right to be heard and good administration, due to a change, in the context of the conformity clearance procedure, of the legal basis for the exclusion from European Union financing of the expenditure at issue in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Article 52 of Regulation 1306/2013, (2) read in conjunction with Article 34 of Regulation 908/2014 (3) and the 2015 Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections, (4) of the rights of the defence and of the principles of sincere cooperation, the right to be heard and good administration, due to a change, in the context of the conformity clearance procedure, of the legal basis for the exclusion from European Union financing of the expenditure at issue in the contested decision.

| 2. | Infringement of Article 296 TFEU due to the statement of reasons of Decision 2021/261 being incomplete and contradictory. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Article 296 TFEU due to the statement of reasons of Decision 2021/261 being incomplete and contradictory.

| 3. | Infringement of Article 54(5)(a) of Regulation 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 54(1) thereof, due to misinterpretation on the part of the European Commission to the effect that, in the present case, the 18-month time limit laid down in Article 54(1) of Regulation 1306/2013 started running from the ‘reception, by the paying agency’, of OLAF’s final reports. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of Article 54(5)(a) of Regulation 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 54(1) thereof, due to misinterpretation on the part of the European Commission to the effect that, in the present case, the 18-month time limit laid down in Article 54(1) of Regulation 1306/2013 started running from the ‘reception, by the paying agency’, of OLAF’s final reports.

| 4. | Infringement of Article 54(5)(c) of Regulation 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 54(1), of Article 325 TFEU and of the principles of subsidiarity and procedural autonomy due to the European Commission’s unfounded and incorrect conclusion that the paying agency failed to act with the requisite care in order to recover the contested sums and acted negligently by failing to initiate an administrative recovery procedure within the time limits prescribed in Article 54(1) of Regulation 1306/2013. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement of Article 54(5)(c) of Regulation 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 54(1), of Article 325 TFEU and of the principles of subsidiarity and procedural autonomy due to the European Commission’s unfounded and incorrect conclusion that the paying agency failed to act with the requisite care in order to recover the contested sums and acted negligently by failing to initiate an administrative recovery procedure within the time limits prescribed in Article 54(1) of Regulation 1306/2013.

| 5. | The amount of the expenditure excluded from European Union financing established in the contested decision does not comply with the rules under Article 54 of Regulation 2013/1306 and infringes the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The amount of the expenditure excluded from European Union financing established in the contested decision does not comply with the rules under Article 54 of Regulation 2013/1306 and infringes the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 59, p. 10.

(2)  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).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).

(4)  C(2015) 3675 final.

---