# C_2020215EN.01002301.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/23

---

Appeal brought on 27 March 2020 by the Republic of Lithuania against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 22 January 2020 in Case T-19/18 Lithuania v Commission

(Case C-153/20 P)

(2020/C 215/28)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič, K. Dieninis)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Czech Republic

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2020 in Case T-19/18 Lithuania v Commission, EU:T:2020:4, by which it dismissed the Republic of Lithuanian’s action of 19 January 2018 for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 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); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2020 in Case T-19/18 Lithuania v Commission, EU:T:2020:4, by which it dismissed the Republic of Lithuanian’s action of 19 January 2018 for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 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);

| — | refer the case back to the General Court or itself decide the case on the grounds set out in the appeal and give final judgment on the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 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); |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court or itself decide the case on the grounds set out in the appeal and give final judgment on the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 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);

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Lithuania requests the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-19/18 (‘the judgment under appeal’) and relies upon the following pleas in law:

| (1) | misinterpretation of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 65/2011 (1) and failure to comply with the duty to state reasons for a judgment because the General Court, when ruling in paragraphs 61 to 80 of the judgment under appeal on the criteria applied in order to determine whether applicants had the status of SMEs, did not clearly and unambiguously substantiate the grounds for its judgment; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

misinterpretation of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 65/2011 (1) and failure to comply with the duty to state reasons for a judgment because the General Court, when ruling in paragraphs 61 to 80 of the judgment under appeal on the criteria applied in order to determine whether applicants had the status of SMEs, did not clearly and unambiguously substantiate the grounds for its judgment;

| (2) | infringement of Article 256(2) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty, because in paragraphs 81 to 90 of the judgment under appeal the General Court ruled on the effectiveness of the monitoring of high-risk projects in a manner contrary to the Court of Justice in previous similar cases, and erroneous assessment of the evidence, because in paragraphs 88 to 92 of the judgment under appeal it failed to establish the facts correctly; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

infringement of Article 256(2) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty, because in paragraphs 81 to 90 of the judgment under appeal the General Court ruled on the effectiveness of the monitoring of high-risk projects in a manner contrary to the Court of Justice in previous similar cases, and erroneous assessment of the evidence, because in paragraphs 88 to 92 of the judgment under appeal it failed to establish the facts correctly;

| (3) | misinterpretation of Article 26 of Regulation No 65/2011 and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence because the General Court, when ruling in paragraphs 178 to 188 of the judgment under appeal on the quality criteria for on-the-spot checks, set out contradictory grounds, thereby unjustifiably broadening Article 26 of Regulation No 65/2011, and in paragraphs 181 and 191 of the judgment under appeal it erred in assessing the evidence; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

misinterpretation of Article 26 of Regulation No 65/2011 and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence because the General Court, when ruling in paragraphs 178 to 188 of the judgment under appeal on the quality criteria for on-the-spot checks, set out contradictory grounds, thereby unjustifiably broadening Article 26 of Regulation No 65/2011, and in paragraphs 181 and 191 of the judgment under appeal it erred in assessing the evidence;

| (4) | infringement of Articles 263 and 256 TFEU and erroneous assessment of the evidence because in paragraphs 195 to 212 of the judgment under appeal the General Court did not verify whether the Commission’s information concerning the inadequacy of the checks on project expenditure was accurate reliable and consistent, and that is a defect in the review of the legality of the Commission’s decision. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

infringement of Articles 263 and 256 TFEU and erroneous assessment of the evidence because in paragraphs 195 to 212 of the judgment under appeal the General Court did not verify whether the Commission’s information concerning the inadequacy of the checks on project expenditure was accurate reliable and consistent, and that is a defect in the review of the legality of the Commission’s decision.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).

---