# C_2014448EN.01002701.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/27

---

Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-678/14)

(2014/C 448/36)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare invalid the Commission’s decision, contained in the letter of 15 July 2014, by which the Commission demands the Slovak Republic to make available the funds corresponding to the loss of traditional own resources; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid the Commission’s decision, contained in the letter of 15 July 2014, by which the Commission demands the Slovak Republic to make available the funds corresponding to the loss of traditional own resources; and

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

—

order the 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the Commission’s lack of jurisdiction
  According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision. No provision of EU law confers jurisdiction on the Commission to act in the way it acted by issuing the contested decision or the jurisdiction, following the quantification of the amount of the loss of traditional own resources in the form of uncollected import duty, to order a Member State, which was not responsible for the assessment or collection of that duty, to make available the funds in the amount specified in the decision, which, the Slovak Republic submits, does not correspond to the stated loss. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Commission’s lack of jurisdiction

According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision. No provision of EU law confers jurisdiction on the Commission to act in the way it acted by issuing the contested decision or the jurisdiction, following the quantification of the amount of the loss of traditional own resources in the form of uncollected import duty, to order a Member State, which was not responsible for the assessment or collection of that duty, to make available the funds in the amount specified in the decision, which, the Slovak Republic submits, does not correspond to the stated loss.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty
  Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty. The obligation on the Slovak Republic, imposed on it by the contested decision, was, in the opinion of that Member State, not possible to predict before that decision was issued. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty

Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty. The obligation on the Slovak Republic, imposed on it by the contested decision, was, in the opinion of that Member State, not possible to predict before that decision was issued.

quod non

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission exercised its jurisdiction incorrectly
  Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision and, in issuing that decision, it also acted in accordance with the principle of legal certainty (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, did not exercise that jurisdiction correctly. First, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it demands payment of the funds from the Slovak Republic despite the fact that the loss of traditional own resources did not occur at all, or did not occur as a direct result of the events which the Commission attributes to the Slovak Republic. Secondly, the Commission infringed the Slovak Republic’s rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission exercised its jurisdiction incorrectly

Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision and, in issuing that decision, it also acted in accordance with the principle of legal certainty (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, did not exercise that jurisdiction correctly. First, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it demands payment of the funds from the Slovak Republic despite the fact that the loss of traditional own resources did not occur at all, or did not occur as a direct result of the events which the Commission attributes to the Slovak Republic. Secondly, the Commission infringed the Slovak Republic’s rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration.

quod non

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons were stated for the contested decision
  In connection with this plea, the Slovak Republic argues that there are several flaws in the statement of reasons for the contested decision, as a result of which it must be regarded as inadequate. This constitutes an infringement of basic procedural legislation and also fails to meet the requirements of legal certainty. According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission failed in the contested decision to state its legal basis. It also provided no explanation of the origin and basis of some of its findings. Lastly, the Slovak Republic submits that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is contradictory. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons were stated for the contested decision

In connection with this plea, the Slovak Republic argues that there are several flaws in the statement of reasons for the contested decision, as a result of which it must be regarded as inadequate. This constitutes an infringement of basic procedural legislation and also fails to meet the requirements of legal certainty. According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission failed in the contested decision to state its legal basis. It also provided no explanation of the origin and basis of some of its findings. Lastly, the Slovak Republic submits that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is contradictory.

---