Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:168
Date: 2012-03-29
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Accession;Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Poland

Action brought on 11 July 2007 - Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-243/07) Language of the case: Polish Parties Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, Agent) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought declare invalid Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (notified under document number C(2007)1979) 1 in so far as it relates to the Republic of Poland; order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments The contested decision determined the amounts of agricultural products in free circulation within Polish territory on the date of Polish accession to the European Union which, in the view of the Commission, exceeded the level of normal stocks of those products and imposed on Poland for that reason 'the amounts to be charged ... in consequence of the expense of elimination of those quantities [of surplus stocks]'. The applicant requests that the decision be declared invalid and bases its charge on two pleas in law: the plea that the Commission was not competent to adopt the contested decision and that it breached Point 4 of Section 4 of Annex IV to the Act of Accession; 2 and the plea that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality. As the basis for its first plea in law, the applicant submits that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission exceeded the competence deriving from Point 4 of Section 4 of Annex IV to the Act of Accession inasmuch as that decision alters the agreements entered into in the Act of Accession by reason of the introduction of financial sanctions not provided for in that Act. The applicant further submits that the contested decision is at variance with the principle defined in the Act of Accession which provides that the Member States must effect the actual elimination of surplus stocks of agricultural products in free circulation within their territory at the time of accession. As the basis for its plea in law concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality, the applicant submits that the objectives of the contested decision are mutually incompatible and for that reason have no legal justification. Moreover, in the applicant's view, the contested decision is not an appropriate means by which to calculate the costs of eliminating surplus supplies. The applicant submits at the same time that the contested decision is critically flawed in its determination of the quantities of surplus stocks in free circulation within Polish territory and that it failed to take account of the quantities of stocks which Poland eliminated at its own expense following the date of accession. The applicant contends that the decision imposed on Poland the costs of eliminating stocks which in actual fact were not borne by the Community, and that this resulted in unjust enrichment of the Community to the detriment of Poland. The applicant also submits that the adoption of the contested decision was not a necessary act in view of the lack of disturbances on the agricultural markets following Polish accession to the European Union and in view of the lengthy period of time which has elapsed since the date of accession. According to the applicant's assertions, the contested decision, notwithstanding the fact that it was adopted on the basis of the Act of Accession, does not realise any of the objectives defined in that Act within the agricultural sector. ____________ 1 - OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14. 2 - Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).