# C_2021088EN.01004301.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/43

---

Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-57/21)

(2021/C 88/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 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 it concerns Hungary and excludes area-related aid for the financial year 2018 from EU funding because an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks were carried out. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 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 it concerns Hungary and excludes area-related aid for the financial year 2018 from EU funding because an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks were carried out.

| — | 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 a single plea in law.

According to the applicant, the Commission misinterpreted the phrase ‘the competent authority shall appropriately increase the percentage of beneficiaries to be checked on-the-spot in the following year’ in Article 35 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 (2) and, on the basis of that misinterpretation, developed a wrongful practice. In the applicant’s view, the exclusion is based on the fact that, in its working documents, the Commission considers itself bound by an interpretation that is technically incorrect and not in accordance with that provision of the regulation.

By adopting the working documents, the Commission effectively deprived the Member States of their power to determine for themselves the percentage of additional beneficiaries that they consider should be subjected to on-the-spot checks. The contested exclusion is unlawful because, contrary to the provisions of the regulation, the Commission specifically determines, using a specific calculation method, the only figure for the increase in the percentage of checks considered acceptable. Furthermore, that determination lacks a technical basis, as the Commission does not take into account the differences between the Member States’ checks and their efficiency.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).

---