# C_2017269EN.01003001.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/30

---

Action brought on 14 June 2017 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-376/17)

(2017/C 269/41)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 2104 final of 4 April 2017 extending the suspension of monthly payments to Poland concerning preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector within the framework of the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 2104 final of 4 April 2017 extending the suspension of monthly payments to Poland concerning preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector within the framework of the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF);

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (1) read in conjunction with the introductory wording of the first subparagraph of that provision and Article 41(2)(b) of that regulation, by extending the suspension of monthly payments on the basis of errors of fact and misinterpretation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions for suspending monthly payments were not met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (1) read in conjunction with the introductory wording of the first subparagraph of that provision and Article 41(2)(b) of that regulation, by extending the suspension of monthly payments on the basis of errors of fact and misinterpretation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions for suspending monthly payments were not met.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by maintaining the rate of suspension of monthly payments at a level that was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential loss to the European Union budget. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by maintaining the rate of suspension of monthly payments at a level that was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential loss to the European Union budget.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

1

---