# C_2019131EN.01002601.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/26

---

Appeal brought on 1 February 2019 by the Republic of Lithuania against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Case T-508/15 Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

(Case C-79/19 P)

(2019/C 131/32)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Krasuckaitė)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-508/15 (1) (‘the judgment under appeal’) in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-508/15 (1) (‘the judgment under appeal’) in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015;

| — | annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 (2) or refer the judgment under appeal back to the General Court for review; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 (2) or refer the judgment under appeal back to the General Court for review;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Republic of Lithuania seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-508/15 on the following legal basis:

| (1) | The General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 83 of the judgment under appeal, that the derogation provided for in Article 33m(1) of Regulation No 1257/1999 (3) relates only to the age of the persons transferring the farm, since that provision is clearly related to the milk quota as evidence of commercial agricultural production. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 83 of the judgment under appeal, that the derogation provided for in Article 33m(1) of Regulation No 1257/1999 (3) relates only to the age of the persons transferring the farm, since that provision is clearly related to the milk quota as evidence of commercial agricultural production.

| (2) | The General Court also distorted the facts in paragraphs 74 to 79 of the judgment under appeal by concluding that the Government of the Republic of Lithuania had failed to demonstrate that holding a milk quota meant that the applicant was engaged in commercial agricultural production, which in essence did not correspond to the documents of the case submitted to it. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The General Court also distorted the facts in paragraphs 74 to 79 of the judgment under appeal by concluding that the Government of the Republic of Lithuania had failed to demonstrate that holding a milk quota meant that the applicant was engaged in commercial agricultural production, which in essence did not correspond to the documents of the case submitted to it.

---

(1)  Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 November 2018, Republic of Lithuania v European Commission, T-508/15 (EU:T:2018:828).

(2)  (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39)

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

---