Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:321
Date: 2025-03-19
Language of the case: Portuguese
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Portugal

Action brought on 24 August 2023 – Portugal v Commission (Case T-525/23) Language of the case: Portuguese Parties Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Barros da Costa, H. Almeida, N. Domingues and G. Gomes, acting as Agents) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) C(2023) 3494 of 3 July 2023, relating to Enquiry NAC/2019/003/PT/RFIL, 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), in so far as it excludes from the financing the amount of EUR 1 421 826.83 (claim years 2016 to 2020), relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in the context of administrative checks in the definition of the basic payment scheme, concerning the checks on the establishment of the number of payment entitlements in the claim year 2015, order the European Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of fact and law, in that it concludes that the Portuguese Government could only allocate payment entitlements ('PEs') for the specific area for which the farmer presented an aid application under the basic payment scheme ('BPS'), that all PEs allocated in accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/20131 should have been considered activated in the claim year 2015 because the PEs allocation is based on a specified area, on the basis of which the farmer applies for the PEs allocation under the BPS, and that a risk to the fund was caused in the claim years 2016 to 2020. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law, in so far as the Commission states therein that, in the claim year 2015, all PEs allocated in accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 should have been considered activated in the claim year 2015 because the PEs allocation is based on a specified area, on the basis of which the farmer applies for the PEs allocation under the BPS, and establishes a correlation between the allocation and the activation of PEs, namely at the time of the 'first allocation', for which the Portuguese Government has no legal basis. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU) in so far as the amount determined by the Commission, relating to the calculation of the risk for the funds in respect of the claim years 2016 to 2020, is excessive and, consequently, the amounts to be excluded from financing are disproportionate. ____________ 1 Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 17 December 2013, establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).