# C_2019230EN.01002401.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/24

---

Appeal brought on 17 May 2019 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-135/15 Italy v Commission

(Case C-390/19 P)

(2019/C 230/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Hungary

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present appeal, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, Case T-135/15, Italy v Commission, notified on 13 March 2019, dismissing the action brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Italian Republic against Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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) (notified under document C(2015) 53); (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present appeal, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, Case T-135/15, Italy v Commission, notified on 13 March 2019, dismissing the action brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Italian Republic against Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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) (notified under document C(2015) 53); (1)

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| (1) | Infringement of Regulations No 320/2006 and No 968/2006. Infringement of Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C-187/12 to C-189/12
  By its first ground of appeal, the appellant takes issue with the judgment under appeal in so far as it wrongly identified the time at which it was necessary to examine whether the silos kept in the sugar-beet factories receiving aid did or did not have the characteristics of a ‘production facility’ and whether or not it was lawful to maintain them in cases in which applications for financial aid had been made for the total dismantling of the facilities. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Infringement of Regulations No 320/2006 and No 968/2006. Infringement of Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C-187/12 to C-189/12

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant takes issue with the judgment under appeal in so far as it wrongly identified the time at which it was necessary to examine whether the silos kept in the sugar-beet factories receiving aid did or did not have the characteristics of a ‘production facility’ and whether or not it was lawful to maintain them in cases in which applications for financial aid had been made for the total dismantling of the facilities.

| (2) | Infringement of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97
  By its second ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the contested decision in so far as the General Court — despite having found that the case in question satisfied both the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the Guidelines for the purpose of establishing one of the ‘borderline cases’, which the EU legislature considered relevant for the purpose of excluding or reducing the financial correction — considered the Commission’s decision not to apply the ‘borderline case’ to be lawful. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Infringement of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the contested decision in so far as the General Court — despite having found that the case in question satisfied both the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the Guidelines for the purpose of establishing one of the ‘borderline cases’, which the EU legislature considered relevant for the purpose of excluding or reducing the financial correction — considered the Commission’s decision not to apply the ‘borderline case’ to be lawful.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.

---