# C_2017256EN.01001801.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/18

---

Appeal brought on 5 June 2017 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 March 2017 in Case T-117/15 Republic of Estonia v European Commission

(Case C-334/17 P)

(2017/C 256/17)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Latvia

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 in Case T-117/15 in so far as it dismissed the action of the Republic of Estonia of 4 March 2015 as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 in Case T-117/15 in so far as it dismissed the action of the Republic of Estonia of 4 March 2015 as inadmissible;

| — | remit the claims made in Estonia’s action of 4 March 2015 to the General Court for decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the claims made in Estonia’s action of 4 March 2015 to the General Court for decision;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court infringed EU law by finding that the judgments in Pimix, (1)
  Czech Republic v Commission
   (2) and Lithuania v Commission
   (3) could not be treated as substantial new facts within the meaning of the case-law and therefore declaring inadmissible the action brought by the Republic of Estonia on 4 March 2015 for the annulment of the decision contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 (Ares(2014)4324235). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court infringed EU law by finding that the judgments in Pimix, (1)
  Czech Republic v Commission
   (2) and Lithuania v Commission
   (3) could not be treated as substantial new facts within the meaning of the case-law and therefore declaring inadmissible the action brought by the Republic of Estonia on 4 March 2015 for the annulment of the decision contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 (Ares(2014)4324235).

Pimix

1

Czech Republic

Commission

2

Lithuania

Commission

3

| 2. | Secondly, in paragraphs 13 and 84 its judgment of 24 March 2017, the General Court wrongly stated as the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of Regulation No 60/2004 (4) in Estonian 4 July 2004 instead of the actual date 4 July 2005. The General Court thereby reached, on the basis of wrong factual elements, a conclusion concerning the possibility of charging operators the levy on the non-elimination of excess sugar stocks solely on the basis of national law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Secondly, in paragraphs 13 and 84 its judgment of 24 March 2017, the General Court wrongly stated as the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of Regulation No 60/2004 (4) in Estonian 4 July 2004 instead of the actual date 4 July 2005. The General Court thereby reached, on the basis of wrong factual elements, a conclusion concerning the possibility of charging operators the levy on the non-elimination of excess sugar stocks solely on the basis of national law.

Official Journal of the European Union

4

| 3. | Thirdly, the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons. More precisely, the General Court did not deal with the obligation to declare excess stocks of sugar as at 1 May 2004, so that the General Court’s conclusion that the failure to publish Regulation No 60/2004 in the Official Journal in Estonian in due time did not prevent the Republic of Estonia from relying on national law to charge operators the levy on the non-elimination of excess sugar stocks is not comprehensible. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons. More precisely, the General Court did not deal with the obligation to declare excess stocks of sugar as at 1 May 2004, so that the General Court’s conclusion that the failure to publish Regulation No 60/2004 in the Official Journal in Estonian in due time did not prevent the Republic of Estonia from relying on national law to charge operators the levy on the non-elimination of excess sugar stocks is not comprehensible.

Official Journal

---

(1)  Judgment in Pimix, C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450.

1

Pimix

(2)  Judgment in Czech Republic v Commission, T-248/07, EU:T:2012:170.

2

Czech Republic

Commission

(3)  Judgment in Lithuania v Commission, T-262/07, EU:T:2012:171.

3

Lithuania

Commission

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).

4

---