# C_2022158EN.01001101.xml

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/11

---

Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-56/22)

(2022/C 158/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Baxter, Agent, and T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s Implementing Decision (EU) No 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union’s financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of ‘active farmer — connected companies’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s Implementing Decision (EU) No 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union’s financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of ‘active farmer — connected companies’; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (2) is wrong. In the applicant’s view, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 is concerned only with direct payments to farmers (as defined in Article 4 of the aforementioned Regulation) who themselves operate the relevant infrastructure or services. The applicant maintains that the defendant held wrongly because:

| — | i. The language and the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 does not have the effect of prohibiting payments to a farmer merely because some connected entity undertakes an activity on the negative list in this article. |
| --- | --- |

—

i. The language and the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 does not have the effect of prohibiting payments to a farmer merely because some connected entity undertakes an activity on the negative list in this article.

| — | ii. There is no purposive or teleological basis for the Commission’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which does not accord with the purposes of this article. |
| --- | --- |

—

ii. There is no purposive or teleological basis for the Commission’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which does not accord with the purposes of this article.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 413, p. 3.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).

---