# C_2023338EN.01003001.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/30

---

Action brought on 26 June 2023 — Kargins v Commission

(Case T-350/23)

(2023/C 338/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rems Kargins (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant is liable for the damage caused to the applicant as a result of the defendant’s interference in national judicial proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant is liable for the damage caused to the applicant as a result of the defendant’s interference in national judicial proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to compensate the applicant for such damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for such damage;

| — | determine that the material damage is at least EUR 15 028 841,93 plus 12 % interest per annum payable from 23 June 2016 until payment in full; and |
| --- | --- |

—

determine that the material damage is at least EUR 15 028 841,93 plus 12 % interest per annum payable from 23 June 2016 until payment in full; and

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law including a plea of illegality.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law that is intended to confer rights on individuals.






  — | The Commission, it is alleged, intervened in proceedings on a national level without acting in accordance with Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1) Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 was violated for the following reasons: The Commission failed to act on its own initiative. Instead it acted upon request by and following discussions with a party to the proceedings as well as the relevant Member State. The Commission failed to be impartial and maintain an objective and neutral stance. The Commission did not act in order ensure a coherent application of Article 107(1) or Article 108 TFEU. The Commission merely explained to the national courts how an unchanged outcome would result in negative consequences for Latvia and was likely to trigger negative action by the Commission. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law that is intended to confer rights on individuals.

—

The Commission, it is alleged, intervened in proceedings on a national level without acting in accordance with Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1) Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 was violated for the following reasons: The Commission failed to act on its own initiative. Instead it acted upon request by and following discussions with a party to the proceedings as well as the relevant Member State. The Commission failed to be impartial and maintain an objective and neutral stance. The Commission did not act in order ensure a coherent application of Article 107(1) or Article 108 TFEU. The Commission merely explained to the national courts how an unchanged outcome would result in negative consequences for Latvia and was likely to trigger negative action by the Commission.

| — | The Commission acted without a proper legal basis because of the illegality of Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. The applicant claims that Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 is illegal because it lacks a sufficient legal basis, because it is inconsistent with Article 267 TFEU, because it is inconsistent with Article 108(2), second subparagraph, TFEU and because it lacks sufficient substantive and procedural safeguards. It is in any case illegal if it is interpreted as permitting the type of intervention which occurred in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission acted without a proper legal basis because of the illegality of Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. The applicant claims that Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 is illegal because it lacks a sufficient legal basis, because it is inconsistent with Article 267 TFEU, because it is inconsistent with Article 108(2), second subparagraph, TFEU and because it lacks sufficient substantive and procedural safeguards. It is in any case illegal if it is interpreted as permitting the type of intervention which occurred in the present case.

| — | The Commission moreover violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission moreover violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant sustained damage in the amount of EUR 15 028 841,93 plus 12 % interest per annum payable from 23 June 2016, this being the amount which the applicant would have received pursuant to the national court orders if it were not for the Commission’s intervention. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant sustained damage in the amount of EUR 15 028 841,93 plus 12 % interest per annum payable from 23 June 2016, this being the amount which the applicant would have received pursuant to the national court orders if it were not for the Commission’s intervention.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that there is a causal link between the Commission’s improper intervention and the fact that the national courts fundamentally changed their approach following the intervention of the Commission after two instances of the national courts had previously decided in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that there is a causal link between the Commission’s improper intervention and the fact that the national courts fundamentally changed their approach following the intervention of the Commission after two instances of the national courts had previously decided in favour of the applicant.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---