62023TJ0399_EXT
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition)
29 October 2025 (
*1
)
(Agriculture – CAP Strategic Plan – Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 – Rules on support for strategic plans drawn up by Member States under the CAP – Commission approval – Rejection of the request for internal review – Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Article 13 of Regulation 2021/2115 – Error of law – Manifest error of assessment)
In Case T‑399/23,
ClientEarth, established in Ixelles (Belgium),
Collectif Nourrir, established in Montreuil (France),
represented by C. Baldon and N. Braoudakis, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Commission, represented by A.-C. Becker, G. Gattinara, F. Le Bot and C. Perrin, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
French Republic, represented by B. Fodda, B. Travard, M. de Lisi, P. Chansou and F. du Couëdic, acting as Agents,
intervener,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed, at the time of the deliberations, of L. Truchot, President, H. Kanninen, M. Sampol Pucurull (Rapporteur), T. Perišin and R. Meyer, Judges,
Registrar: P. Cullen, Administrator,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
further to the hearing on 13 December 2024,
gives the following
Judgment (
1
)
1
By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, ClientEarth and Collectif Nourrir, seek the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 5 May 2023 (‘the contested decision’) rejecting their request for internal review of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 6012 final of 31 August 2022 approving the 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan of France for Union support financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (‘the approval decision’).
I. Background to the dispute
2
The applicants are, first, ClientEarth, a non-profit association governed by Belgian law whose work is to promote environmental protection and, secondly, Collectif Nourrir, a non-profit association governed by French law whose objective is environmental protection, networking between environmental associations and organisations and promoting ecological agricultural policies.
3
On 22 December 2021, the French Republic, under Article 118(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 1), submitted to the Commission a proposal for a common agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plan (‘the CAP Strategic Plan’) for the 2023 to 2027 period.
4
On 31 March 2022, in accordance with Article 118(2) of Regulation 2021/2115, the Commission, after assessing the proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan drawn up by the French Republic (‘the French Plan’), submitted observations and requested additional information.
5
On 22 April 2022, the French Republic sent a letter to the Commission setting out its comments on the observations submitted in the letter of 31 March 2022 referred to in paragraph 4 above.
6
On 4 August 2022, the French Republic sent the Commission information in response to its observations and submitted a revised version of its proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan.
7
On 31 August 2022, the Commission adopted the approval decision under Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115.
8
By letter of 3 November 2022, the applicants asked the Commission to carry out an internal review of the approval decision (‘the request for internal review’), pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13; ‘the Aarhus Regulation’), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2021 (OJ 2021 L 356, p. 1). They considered that the Commission had exceeded its competence by approving the French Plan even though it was incompatible with the essential requirements of Regulation 2021/2115. In the alternative, the applicants submitted that the Commission had made several manifest errors of assessment, in particular due to the inability of the French Plan to contribute effectively to the achievement of the specific objectives set out in Article 6(1)(d) to (f) of Regulation 2021/2115 relating to climate change mitigation, protection of natural resources by reducing chemical dependency and halting and reversing biodiversity loss (‘the specific environment and climate objectives’).
9
By the contested decision, the Member of the Commission responsible for agriculture informed the applicants that he did not accept any of the legal and scientific arguments put forward in support of their request for internal review. The Commission therefore considered that that request was unfounded and rejected it.
II. Form of order sought
10
The applicants claim that the Court should:
–
annul the contested decision;
–
order the Commission to pay the costs.
11
The Commission contends that the Court should:
–
dismiss the action as unfounded;
–
order the applicants to pay the costs.
12
In its statement in intervention in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, the French Republic submits that the Court should dismiss the action.
III. Law
13
In support of their action, the applicants raise four pleas in law, alleging:
–
first, errors relating to the Commission’s competence to adopt the approval decision;
–
secondly, manifest errors of assessment relating to the contribution of the French Plan to the attainment of the specific objective set out in Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation 2021/2115 (‘specific objective D’) in relation to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (‘GHG emissions’) and to the long-term national target values referred to in Article 109(2) of that regulation (‘the long-term national target values’) relating to that objective;
–
thirdly, manifest errors of assessment relating to the contribution of the French Plan to the achievement of the specific objective set out in Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation 2021/2115, in particular the protection of water resources (‘specific objective E’), and to the long-term national target values relating to that objective;
–
fourthly, manifest errors of assessment as regards the contribution of the French Plan to the achievement of the specific objective set out in Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation 2021/2115 relating to the preservation and restoration of biodiversity (‘specific objective F’).
14
In that regard, it should be noted that, according to the case-law, the Court must interpret an applicant’s pleas in law by reference to their substance rather than their characterisation and thus characterise the pleas in law and the arguments in the application (see judgment of 5 September 2014, Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, T‑471/11, EU:T:2014:739, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
15
It is apparent from an examination of the substance of the applicants’ written pleadings, however, that the first plea in law presented in the application does not concern the possible lack of competence of the Commission to approve the French Plan. After all, by their first plea in law, the applicants dispute the manner in which the Commission exercised that competence in that it did not respect the limits of the mandate conferred by Article 118(4) and (6) of Regulation 2021/2115 when adopting the approval decision. When questioned at the hearing on the scope of that plea, the applicants confirmed that interpretation.
16
In those circumstances, it must be held that the first plea in law consists, in reality, of three parts, alleging, first, errors of law relating to the nature and scope of the check carried out by the Commission under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115, second, errors of law as regards the interpretation of the limits of the Commission’s implementing powers conferred by Article 118(4) and (6) of that regulation and, third, a manifest error of assessment as regards the French Plan’s satisfaction of the essential elements of that regulation.
A. General observations
17
The scope of the judicial review carried out by the Courts of the European Union in their examination of an action for annulment brought pursuant to Article 12 of the Aarhus Regulation against a decision on a request for internal review under Article 10 of that regulation does not differ from the scope of the judicial review which the General Court carries out on the merits of the grounds of decisions directly challenged on the basis of Article 263(2) and (4) TFEU where such a decision is based on complex technical and scientific assessments (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 December 2016, TestBioTech and Others v Commission, T‑177/13, not published, EU:T:2016:736, paragraph 81; of 18 October 2023, TestBioTech v Commission, T‑605/21, not published, EU:T:2023:648, paragraph 18; and of 25 June 2025, ClientEarth v Council, T‑648/22, not published, EU:T:2025:631, paragraph 105).
18
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, where an EU institution is called upon to make complex assessments, it enjoys a wide measure of discretion, the exercise of which is subject to a judicial review restricted to verifying that the measure in question is not vitiated by a manifest error or a misuse of powers and that the competent authority did not clearly exceed the bounds of its discretion (see judgment of 15 December 2016, TestBioTech and Others v Commission, T‑177/13, not published, EU:T:2016:736, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited).
19
In order to establish that an institution committed a manifest error in assessing complex facts so as to justify the annulment of an act, the evidence adduced by the applicant must be sufficient to make the factual assessments used in the act implausible. Subject to that review of plausibility, it is not the Court’s role to substitute its assessment of complex facts for that made by the institution which adopted the decision. A plea alleging the existence of a manifest error must therefore be rejected if, despite the evidence adduced by the applicant, the contested assessment may still be accepted as true or valid. That is particularly so where the decision at issue is vitiated by errors which, taken together, are of only minor significance unlikely to have influenced the administration (see judgment of 4 April 2019, ClientEarth v Commission, T‑108/17, EU:T:2019:215, paragraph 246 and the case-law cited).
20
Furthermore, the limits to the review by the Courts of the European Union do not affect their duty to establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, whether that evidence contains all the relevant information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation, and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (see judgment of 15 December 2016, TestBioTech and Others v Commission, T‑177/13, not published, EU:T:2016:736, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).
…
C. The first plea in law, alleging errors of law in the interpretation and application of Article 118(3), (4) and (6) of Regulation 2021/2115 and a manifest error of assessment as regards the compliance of the French Plan with the essential elements of that regulation
45
As is apparent from paragraph 16 above, the first plea in law is essentially divided into three parts.
46
The Court considers it necessary to examine, first of all, the second part of the first plea seeking to challenge the limits of the Commission’s implementing powers conferred by Article 118(4) and (6) of Regulation 2021/2115 to adopt the approval decision, then the first part concerning the nature and scope of the check carried out by the Commission under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115 and, lastly, the third part alleging a manifest error of assessment.
1.
The second part of the first plea in law, alleging errors of law as regards the interpretation of the limits of the Commission’s implementing powers conferred by Article 118(4) and (6) of Regulation 2021/2115
47
The second part of the first plea in law is essentially divided into two complaints, concerning, first, the Commission’s refusal to accept that an implementing act, such as the approval decision, must comply with the essential elements of the basic act and, secondly, the Commission’s refusal to consider the specific environment and climate objectives as essential elements of Regulation 2021/2115.
(a)
The first complaint, concerning the Commission’s refusal to accept the obligation for an implementing act, such as the approval decision, to comply with the essential elements of the basic act
48
The applicants claim that the considerations set out in Section 4.1 of the annex to the contested decision are vitiated by an error of law relating to the Commission’s refusal to accept the obligation for an implementing act, such as the approval decision, to comply with the essential elements of the basic act. In their view, the Commission’s implementing power under Article 118(4) and (6) of Regulation 2021/2115 does not depend solely on the existence of a delegation of power authorising it to adopt such an approval decision, but also on the compliance of the implementing act with the essential elements of the basic act, in accordance with Article 291 TFEU.
49
The Commission, supported by the French Republic, disputes the applicants’ arguments.
50
Under Article 291(1) TFEU, Member States are to adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding EU acts. However, as is provided for in paragraph 2 thereof, where uniform conditions for implementing legally binding EU acts are needed, those acts are to confer implementing powers on the Commission, or, in duly justified specific cases and within the framework of the common foreign and security policy, on the Council of the European Union. According to Article 291(4) TFEU, the word ‘implementing’ is to be inserted in the title of implementing acts.
51
It is apparent from the approval decision that it is based on Article 118(6) of Regulation 2021/2115, under which the Commission is to approve each CAP Strategic Plan by means of an implementing decision subject to compliance with the requirements referred to in paragraph 4 of that article.
52
In those circumstances, the implementing power conferred on the Commission is delimited by both Article 291(2) TFEU and Article 118 of Regulation 2021/2115.
53
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the concept of ‘implementation’ comprises both the drawing-up of implementing rules and the application of rules to specific cases by means of acts of individual application (see judgment of 1 March 2016, National Iranian Oil Company v Council, C‑440/14 P, EU:C:2016:128, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
54
In the present case, the purpose of the approval decision is to approve the proposed French Plan so that it can have legal effects in accordance with Article 118(4) and (7) of Regulation 2021/2115.
55
Thus, the approval decision attests to the conformity of a national measure, namely the French Plan, with a series of conditions set out in Regulation 2021/2115. It is addressed to the French Republic and constitutes a preliminary step towards the implementation of the national legal framework governing the granting of EU support to farmers and other beneficiaries on the basis of the French Plan as approved.
56
In that regard, according to Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115, the Commission is to approve the proposed CAP Strategic Plan provided that the necessary information has been submitted and the plan is compatible with Article 9 and the other requirements set out in that regulation and in Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 187), as well as the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to them.
57
In that context, it is apparent from a combined reading of recitals 27, 97 and 110 and Articles 9 and 118 of Regulation 2021/2115 that the purpose of the approval procedure is to ensure that CAP Strategic Plans, adopted by the Member States in order to implement the CAP at national level, comply with EU rules, in particular with the objectives of the CAP as are fixed by Article 39 TFEU and specified by that regulation.
58
It follows from the above provisions that an implementing power was conferred on the Commission in order to monitor the compliance of each proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan with the requirements set out in Regulation 2021/2115.
59
Thus, the implementing power conferred on the Commission by Article 291 TFEU and Article 118 of Regulation 2021/2115 to adopt an approval decision is limited to monitoring the compliance of a particular type of act, namely proposals for CAP Strategic Plans. Accordingly, respect of the limits of that power must be examined not only by reference to the essential general objectives of that regulation, but also all the requirements referred to in Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115.
60
In the present case, in Section 4.1 of the annex to the contested decision, in response to the ground for review based on the lack of competence to adopt the approval decision, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 13(2) TEU, each institution must act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties. In its view, the question whether an act has been adopted without authorisation must be assessed in the light of the legal basis which enables that institution to act, whether it be implicit or express. Even if the Commission were to exceed the limits of the powers conferred on it to adopt a given legal act, it would remain competent to adopt it despite the illegality committed in the exercise of that competence. Accordingly, it considers that the arguments put forward in support of that ground are unfounded in the context of a challenge based on non-compliance with the principle of conferral of powers.
61
The Commission notes, in the contested decision, that Article 118(4) and (6) of Regulation 2021/2115 explicitly confers on it the power to approve the CAP Strategic Plans proposed by the Member States. It states that approval decisions adopted on that basis are not intended to amend or supplement the basic act, namely that regulation, or to lay down implementing rules. In that context, it recalls that CAP Strategic Plans are drawn up by the Member States, in accordance with Article 104 of that regulation, in order to implement EU support to achieve the specific objectives contained in Article 6(1) and (2) thereof and must satisfy all the requirements set out in that regulation.
62
Thus, in the contested decision, the Commission considers that it must verify whether the arguments relied on in support of the ground alleging its lack of competence to approve the French Plan establish the existence of infringements of Regulation 2021/2115, the delegated acts or the implementing acts adopted pursuant to it, the alleged infringements of which must be examined under Article 10(1) of the Aarhus Regulation since they constitute ‘environmental law’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation.
63
However, it must be held that the complaint, put forward independently by the applicants, that the Commission erred in law in finding that an implementing act, such as the approval decision, did not have to respect the essential elements of the basic act does not constitute a matter falling within the scope of environmental law within the meaning of the Aarhus Regulation. Therefore, even if it were well founded, that complaint would not lead to a finding of an infringement of environmental law within the meaning of the Aarhus Regulation which could lead to the annulment of the contested decision. As the Commission has noted, within the framework of an internal review, it is bound to examine the request only in so far as the author of that request claims that the administrative act in question contravenes environmental law (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 March 2018, TestBioTech v Commission, T‑33/16, EU:T:2018:135, paragraphs 48, 68 and 78).
64
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that no provision of the Treaties requires the EU Courts to examine, in any event, the merits of the pleas in law or arguments raised in support of the claims brought before it. On the contrary, the EU Courts may, inter alia, for reasons relating to the efficient administration of justice, refrain from examining the merits of pleas which must be dismissed as inadmissible or inoperative (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 September 2022, HIM v Commission, C‑500/21 P, not published, EU:C:2022:741, paragraphs 72 and 73).
65
The present complaint put forward by the applicants being ineffective, there is no need to examine its merits.
66
Accordingly, the first complaint of the second part must be rejected as ineffective.
(b)
The second complaint, alleging that the Commission refused to regard the specific environment and climate objectives of Regulation 2021/2115 as essential elements
67
The applicants complain that, in the contested decision, the Commission refused to regard the specific environment and climate objectives as essential elements of Regulation 2021/2115 within the meaning of the case-law relating to Article 291 TFEU.
68
The Commission, supported by the French Republic, disputes the applicants’ arguments.
69
In the present case, in Section 3.2 of the annex to the contested decision, the Commission considers that the specific environment and climate objectives do not constitute central elements of the CAP. In its view, there is no hierarchy between the specific objectives set out in Article 6 of Regulation 2021/2115 which stem from Article 105 of that regulation.
70
Moreover, according to Section 3.3 of the annex to the contested decision, a CAP Strategic Plan must be approved as soon as it is established that the intervention strategy which it contains and its elements are adequate to meet the objectives set out in Regulation 2021/2115 and that it is compatible with that regulation and Regulation 2021/2116.
71
Thus, the Commission not having erred in law in finding, in the contested decision, that the approval decision had to comply with all the requirements set out in Regulation 2021/2115, including Article 118(4) thereof and those to which that article refers, in particular compliance with specific environment and climate objectives, its refusal to classify those general objectives as essential has no bearing on the legality of the contested decision.
72
Accordingly, the second complaint must be rejected as ineffective and, consequently, the second part of the first plea in law must be rejected in its entirety.
2.
The first part of the first plea in law, alleging errors of law relating to the nature and scope of the check carried out by the Commission under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115
73
The first part of the first plea in law is divided into two complaints, alleging, first, an error of law as regards the nature of the check carried out by the Commission of the proposed CAP Strategic Plans under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115 and, secondly, an error of law relating to the Commission’s misunderstanding of the scope of its check of the proposed CAP Strategic Plans.
(a)
The first complaint, alleging an error of law as regards the nature of the check carried out by the Commission of the proposed CAP Strategic Plans under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115
74
The applicants claim, in essence, that the considerations set out in Section 3 of the annex to the contested decision are vitiated by an error of law as regards the nature of the check carried out by the Commission of the proposed CAP Strategic Plans under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115. In their view, the Commission uses an excessively restrictive interpretation which is limited to verifying compliance with the formal condition relating to the submission of all the necessary information relating to the proposed CAP Strategic Plan. The autonomy of the Member States in designing the intervention strategy for their CAP Strategic Plans remains subject to compliance with the framework and objectives laid down by that regulation.
75
On the one hand, the applicants complain that the Commission, in Section 3.3 of the annex to the contested decision, erred in law as regards the nature of the observations addressed to the French Republic under Article 118(3) of Regulation 2021/2115. In their view, it distorted the scope of those observations by minimising the points of non-compliance with that regulation.
76
On the other hand, the applicants consider that the Commission’s central role in the approval phase of proposals for CAP Strategic Plans follows both from Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115 and from the general scheme of that regulation. In their view, that article, read in conjunction with Article 109(2) and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 111 of that regulation, requires the fulfilment of substantive conditions by each proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan, in particular Article 9 thereof, and of other requirements laid down in that regulation. In that regard, only a check that the formal and substantive conditions have been satisfied would make it possible, first, to assess concretely the impact of the proposed CAP Strategic Plan, question the Member State’s explanations and choices and point out any incompatibilities and persistent shortcomings and, secondly, to guarantee the common nature of the CAP by avoiding any risk of renationalisation.
77
The applicants therefore consider that the check of substantive conditions by the Commission must be based not only on the analyses expected from the Member States under Regulation 2021/2115, but also on its own knowledge and, where appropriate, on the analysis reports available on the subject. Thus, neither the complexity of the subject nor the time limit for approving each proposal is such as to justify a reduction in the level of scrutiny exercised over the proposed CAP Strategic Plans.
78
In the context of that complaint, the applicants dispute the Commission’s interpretation, in the contested decision, of Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115.
79
It is necessary to examine the legal framework which confers such a power on the Commission to approve CAP Strategic Plan proposals before ascertaining whether there was an error of law in the response to the applicants’ request for internal review in the contested decision.
(1) The nature of the check carried out under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115
80
It must be recalled that the interpretation of a provision of EU law requires account to be taken not only of its wording, but also of its context, and the objectives and purpose pursued by the act of which it forms part, or even its legislative history (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 June 2020, A and Others(Wind turbines at Aalter and Nevele), C‑24/19, EU:C:2020:503, paragraph 37, and of 3 September 2024, Illumina and Grail v Commission, C‑611/22 P and C‑625/22 P, EU:C:2024:677, paragraphs 126 and 127 and the case-law cited).
81
Article 118 of Regulation 2021/2115 sets out the procedure for the assessment and approval of each proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan. Paragraph 1 thereof provides that each Member State is to submit to the Commission a proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan.
82
Article 118(2) of Regulation 2021/2115 provides that the Commission is to carry out an assessment of the CAP Strategic Plan submitted to it as regards its completeness, its consistency and coherence with the general principles of EU law, with that regulation and the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to it and with Regulation 2021/2116, its effective contribution to the achievement of the specific objectives set out in Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation 2021/2115 and its impact on the proper functioning of the internal market and distortion of competition and on the level of administrative burden on beneficiaries and administration.
83
According to the first subparagraph of Article 118(3) of Regulation 2021/2115, the Commission may address observations to the Member States within three months of the date of submission of the proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan. The second subparagraph provides that the Member State is required to provide to the Commission all necessary additional information and, where appropriate, revise the proposed CAP Strategic Plan.
84
Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115 lays down the criteria for the approval of CAP Strategic Plan proposals. First, the necessary information referred to in Article 118(3) of that regulation must have been submitted to the Commission and, secondly, the proposed CAP Strategic Plan must be compatible with Article 9 and the other requirements set out in that regulation and in Regulation 2021/2116 as well as the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to them. The approval must exclusively be based on acts which are legally binding on Member States.
85
In the first place, on the one hand, it follows from the wording of Article 118 of Regulation 2021/2115 that, according to paragraph 3 thereof, the Commission’s observations may relate not only to the provision of additional information, but may also lead to a revision of the CAP Strategic Plan proposal. The use of the expression ‘where appropriate’ implies that the need to make amendments depends on the nature of those observations. Thus, the Commission’s observations may identify the existence of incompatibilities between the proposed CAP Strategic Plan and the requirements set out in Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115. Therefore, the Member State will be obliged to amend it in order to obtain the Commission’s approval. However, those observations may also contain suggestions on how the Member State could improve its proposed CAP Strategic Plan, or even questions about certain aspects of that plan, without requiring any revision.
86
Moreover, it should be recalled that the Commission’s observations on each proposed CAP Strategic Plan are only an intermediate measure in the process of drawing up a CAP Strategic Plan. Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115 provides that approval is to be granted following examination of the revised CAP Strategic Plan proposal.
87
On the other hand, according to Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115, the Commission is to carry out a two-stage check of the proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan, namely, first, its completeness in terms of all the necessary information, and, second, its compatibility with exhaustively listed requirements derived from EU law.
88
In the second place, the contextual interpretation supports the literal interpretation mentioned in paragraphs 83 to 87 above.
89
According to Article 118 of Regulation 2021/2115, first, the Commission is to carry out an assessment of each proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan against an exhaustive list of criteria set out by paragraph 2 thereof. The Commission is to verify its completeness, its consistency and coherence with the general principles of EU law, with that regulation and the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to it and with Regulation 2021/2116, its effective contribution to the achievement of the specific objectives set out in Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation 2021/2115 and its impact on the proper functioning of the internal market and distortion of competition and on the level of administrative burden on beneficiaries and administration. The second sentence of that article states that the assessment is to address ‘in particular’ the adequacy of a series of elements which make up those proposals. The use of such an expression indicates that it is not an additional assessment, but rather one of the components of that phase.
90
Next, the Commission is to initiate a procedure with the Member State during which it will be able to submit observations in accordance with Article 118(3) of Regulation 2021/2115. As has been recalled in paragraphs 83 and 85 above, that article states that the content of those observations depends on the results of the assessment of each CAP Strategic Plan proposal that the Commission had to carry out beforehand. It is not stipulated that they are limited solely to issues of compatibility with that regulation. That article also sets out the potential consequences to be drawn from the said observations.
91
Lastly, following a dialogue with the Member State, the Commission is to adopt an implementing decision on the approval of the proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan, possibly amended following its observations, provided that it is compatible with the requirements set out in the EU legislation referred to in Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115. In that context, it should be noted that Article 118(5) of that regulation states that the approval must be given no later than six months following the submission of the proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan by the Member State concerned and that that approval must not cover the information referred to in Article 113(c) and in Annexes I to IV to the proposed CAP Strategic Plan referred to in Article 107(2)(a) to (d), which contains, respectively, the ex ante evaluation, including the strategic environmental assessment, the analysis of the situation in terms of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (‘the SWOT analysis’), the consultation of the partners and the crop-specific payment for cotton, in accordance with Article 115(1) to (4) of the same regulation.
92
Furthermore, Article 1(2) of Regulation 2021/2115 recalls that the Commission approves the CAP Strategic Plans and that the Member States draw them up.
93
As regards the role of the Member States, according to Article 104(1) of Regulation 2021/2115, they are to establish a CAP Strategic Plan in order to implement the EU support financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
94
In that regard, according to Article 8 of Regulation 2021/2115, Member States are to pursue the objectives set out in Articles 5 and 6 of that regulation by specifying interventions on the basis of the types of intervention set out in that regulation in accordance with their assessment of needs and with the common requirements laid down in the same regulation.
95
In that context, Articles 9 to 84 of Regulation 2021/2115 determine the types of intervention and the common requirements to be applied by the Member States in order to ensure the common nature of the CAP. Articles 107 to 115 of that regulation lay down requirements concerning the content of the CAP Strategic Plans. Those constitute guidance documents on the strategy adopted by each Member State to implement the CAP.
96
As far as the Commission is concerned, first, as is apparent in particular from Article 152 of Regulation 2021/2115, it is to adopt the various delegated acts necessary for the implementation of that regulation. Secondly, it is responsible for adopting implementing acts, as is apparent from Article 11(2), Article 37(6), Article 38(6), Article 59(8), Article 117, Article 123(5), Article 126(5), Article 133, Article 134(14), Article 143(4), Article 148 and Article 150(3) of that regulation. Thirdly, according to Articles 120 to 143 of the same regulation, the Commission is to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the CAP Strategic Plans as approved by the Member States.
97
Thus, Regulation 2021/2115 provides for a division of tasks between the Member States and the Commission promoting more subsidiarity within a common framework which must ensure that the choices made at national level are aligned with the priorities and objectives of the European Union.
98
In the third place, the teleological interpretation supports the literal and contextual interpretation mentioned in paragraphs 83 to 97 above.
99
In that context, it is necessary, first of all, to recall that, in accordance with Article 4(2) TFEU, shared competence between the European Union and the Member States applies, inter alia, in the area of agriculture.
100
In addition, Article 5 of Regulation 2021/2115 recalls that the objectives of the CAP must be pursued in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
101
In that context, according to recital 3 of Regulation 2021/2115, the way in which the CAP is managed now follows a new approach which is based on the idea that the European Union sets the basic policy parameters, while the Member States bear greater responsibility as to how they meet those objectives and achieve targets. As a result, enhanced subsidiarity makes it possible to take better account of local conditions and needs and the particular nature of agricultural activity. In that regard, it follows from recitals 27, 96 and 97 of that regulation that it organises a transfer of responsibility to the Member States.
102
Thus, the new method of managing the CAP put in place by the EU legislature is based on a system of collaboration which gives Member States discretion to adapt interventions to the demands and specific needs of their national agriculture while providing for review by the European Union to ensure they are compatible with the CAP (order of 17 October 2024, Complejo Agrícola Las Lomas v Commission, T‑729/22, EU:T:2024:711, paragraph 70).
103
It follows from all the factors set out above that, on the one hand, the observations made by the Commission under Article 118(3) of Regulation 2021/2115 are not binding in themselves, but their content must lead the Member State submitting the CAP Strategic Plan proposal to make amendments to it if they reveal incompatibilities with the requirements set out in Article 118(4) of that regulation which constitute obstacles to the approval of that plan and, on the other hand, under that provision, the Commission must carry out a check of the compatibility of CAP Strategic Plan proposals with the requirements set out in the EU legislation referred to in that paragraph.
(2) The Commission’s interpretation in the contested decision
104
In Section 3.3 of the annex to the contested decision, the Commission recalls, first, that the approval of each CAP Strategic Plan proposal consists of three stages, namely the assessment, then the formulation of observations and, lastly, the approval. In its view, Article 118(2) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115 obliges it to approve a CAP Strategic Plan proposal where it is established that its intervention strategy and its elements are adequate to meet the objectives set out in that proposal and that it is compatible with that regulation and Regulation 2021/2116. It states that the approval is based solely on elements which are legally binding on the Member States.
105
In addition, the Commission recalls that, as far as the observations addressed to the Member States under Article 118(3) of Regulation 2021/2115 are concerned, those are an interim step in the approval process of the CAP Strategic Plan, which may be followed by further exchanges with Member States on specific aspects of their CAP Strategic Plan proposals. In its view, depending on the issues identified during the assessment, first, its observations may invite or request the Member State to rectify certain elements of the CAP Strategic Plan proposal which may not be compatible with Article 9 of that regulation, with other of its requirements or with Regulation 2021/2116. Secondly, those observations may contain invitations or suggestions on how to improve the consistency of interventions, the level of ambition of the CAP Strategic Plan overall, with respect to specific environment and climate objectives, or the ambition of specific targets, the design of interventions, their coherence, as well as suggestions on how to reduce the administrative burden when implementing that plan. Thirdly, those observations may relate to elements of the CAP Strategic Plan proposal which are unclear, are incomplete, lack detail, raise doubts or could benefit from an additional explanation or improvement, even if they are elements that the Member States are free to choose or design themselves.
106
As a result, the Commission considers that a Member State’s response to its observations may vary according to their content and does not necessarily lead to an amendment to a CAP Strategic Plan proposal, as a clarification or an additional explanation may be sufficient.
107
As regards, more specifically, the adequacy requirement, the Commission states that that requirement is met where the proposed intervention strategy is aligned with the SWOT analysis and the definition of needs, where its environmental and climate architecture is consistent with and likely to contribute to the national target values based on the EU legislation listed in Annex XIII to Regulation 2021/2115 and where the intervention strategy, as a whole, is meant to and liable to contribute effectively to the specific objectives defined in that regulation.
108
Next, the Commission emphasises that, on the one hand, Regulation 2021/2115 entrusts certain tasks and decisions exclusively or predominantly to the Member States, in particular Article 115(2) and Article 103 thereof, or excludes elements of the approval procedure, such as Article 113(c) and Article 118(5) thereof. On the other hand, according to the Commission, that regulation limits the scope of its scrutiny with regard to certain elements of CAP Strategic Plan proposals, in particular where certain prescribed procedures are followed or where the item in question has been designed or calculated using methods prescribed by it.
109
Lastly, the Commission considers that Regulation 2021/2115 does not empower it to prescribe to Member States how certain interventions or elements of that regulation are to be implemented in detail, or a minimum level of ambition as regards the objectives pursued or the impact indicators, or to set the detailed rules for the implementation of the conditionality requirements. In its view, in accordance with the new regulatory framework which gives Member States greater flexibility, such a standard of control stems from the limits imposed on it by that regulation in the process for approving CAP Strategic Plan proposals and the division of tasks between it and the Member States in the preparation, assessment and approval of those proposals.
110
Accordingly, the Commission did not err in law as regards the interpretation of Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115 in finding that its role in the assessment and approval of each CAP Strategic Plan proposal was limited to ensuring compatibility with a list of requirements derived from EU law, in particular by assessing the contribution of that proposal to the objectives of that legislation.
111
The arguments put forward by the applicants are not such as to call such a finding into question.
112
First, it is not apparent from the contested decision that the Commission considers that its check is limited to satisfying a formal condition, but rather a set of specific requirements, as is evident from the factors recalled in paragraphs 104 and 107 above.
113
Secondly, as regards the argument that the Commission is required, when examining proposals for CAP Strategic Plans, to rely not only on the analyses expected from the Member States under Regulation 2021/2115, but also on its own knowledge and, where appropriate, on external reports, it should be recalled that that regulation establishes a specific division of roles between the Commission and the Member States with regard to factual analyses.
114
In that regard, the new CAP delivery model, as follows from Regulation 2021/2115, in particular from recitals 99 and 100 thereof, emphasises the importance of the prior analysis of the national situation and the identification of specific national needs in order to design the CAP Strategic Plans. According to that regulation, such a process should promote more subsidiarity within a common EU framework.
115
To that end, Regulation 2021/2115 entrusts Member States with carrying out analyses of the agricultural context, at both national and regional level. The first of those analyses, provided for in Article 108 of that regulation, concerns the assessment of needs, the second, under Article 115(2) of that regulation, is the SWOT analysis and the third, set out in Article 139 of that regulation, known as the ex ante evaluation, seeks to assess the impact of the proposed CAP Strategic Plan according to several criteria, including its contribution to the achievement of specific objectives.
116
Moreover, the second subparagraph of Article 118(5) of Regulation 2021/2115 provides, inter alia, that the approval is not to cover the information recalled in paragraph 115 above.
117
Thus, the approval procedure does not oblige the Commission to endorse the analyses carried out by the Member States and recalled in paragraph 115 above, or to supplement them with other analyses.
118
In the present case, the Commission did not err in law in the contested decision, in particular in Section 3.3 of the annex thereto, where it recalled that Regulation 2021/2115 did not vest it, for the purposes of assessing CAP Strategic Plan proposals, with investigative powers which enabled it to conduct its own fact-finding or even checks and controls of the information on which those proposals were based. Similarly, the mere finding made by the Commission, in the same section of the annex to the contested decision, that, in addition to that information, it may use, for the assessment of CAP Strategic Plan proposals, other information already at its disposal does not constitute an error of law as regards the nature of the check provided for by Article 118(4) of the said regulation.
119
Thirdly, it is not apparent from the Commission’s response in Section 3.3 of the annex to the contested decision that it considered that the intensity of its review of the proposed CAP Strategic Plans in the context of the approval procedure was reduced because of the complexity of the subject and the six-month period within which it had to approve them following their submission, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 118(5) of Regulation 2021/2115.
120
In the contested decision, the Commission merely recalls the limits of its scrutiny, as is apparent from Article 118(2) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115, emphasising that the establishment of a CAP Strategic Plan is based on a prospective analysis over a period of at least five years, entailing a considerable degree of uncertainty over future developments affecting the agricultural sector.
121
Consequently, it follows from all the foregoing that the Commission did not err in law in the contested decision in recalling the specificities of the procedure for approval of CAP Strategic Plan proposals under Article 118(3) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115.
122
Accordingly, the first complaint of the first part must be rejected as unfounded.
(b)
The second complaint, alleging an error of law relating to the scope of the check carried out by the Commission on the intervention strategy under Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115
123
The applicants claim that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law as regards the scope of the check that the Commission must carry out under Article 118(2) and (4) of Regulation 2021/2115. In their view, the Commission must not limit itself to an overall check of the intervention strategy and the overall contribution of the French Plan in relation to the specific objectives, but must analyse the effectiveness of the measures included in that plan in contributing to their achievement.
124
The applicants consider that the Commission must assess, on the one hand, the effective contribution of the intervention strategy, that is to say its ability to produce the desired or claimed results, and, on the other hand, the consistent contribution of the environmental architecture to the long-term national target values relating to environmental and climate objectives, namely the contribution of that architecture to the achievement of those values commensurate with the importance of the CAP Strategic Plan for achieving them in the agricultural sector. To that end, it is necessary to examine the key measures set out in the French Plan to address priority needs and achieve the specific environment and climate objectives or those long-term national target values.
125
The Commission, supported by the French Republic, disputes the applicants’ arguments.
126
According to Article 118(2) of Regulation 2021/2115, recalled in paragraph 89 above, the Commission must assess, inter alia, the effective contribution of the proposed CAP Strategic Plan to the achievement of the specific objectives set out in Article 6(1) and (2) of that regulation. That assessment is to address ‘in particular’ the adequacy of a series of elements that make up the CAP Strategic Plan proposal.
127
The approval procedure provides that the Commission is to ensure that the intervention strategy contained in the CAP Strategic Plan proposal is capable of producing concrete and coordinated effects in order to achieve the specific objectives set by Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation 2021/2115.
128
In that regard, Article 109 of Regulation 2021/2115 on the intervention strategy states that it must describe how the interventions allow reaching the targets, including those set for the specific environment and climate objectives, and how they are mutually coherent and compatible. The same applies to the allocation of financial resources which must be justified and adequate to achieve those targets. Moreover, Article 109(2)(a) of that regulation adds that that intervention strategy must demonstrate its consistency and the complementarity of the interventions linked to the specific objectives by providing, in particular, an overview of the environmental and climate architecture describing how each standard of good agricultural and environmental conditions (‘GAEC’) is implemented, the overall contribution of conditionality to achieving the specific environment and climate objectives, the complementarity between several forms of aid with the same specific objectives, the way to achieve the greater overall contribution set out in Article 105 of that regulation and how that environmental and climate architecture is meant to contribute to the achievement of, and be consistent with, the long-term national target values.
129
As regards the increased ambition with regard to specific environment and climate objectives, Article 105 of Regulation 2021/2115 provides that Member States must aim to make an overall contribution to their achievement which is greater than that made to the achievement of the objective laid down by the previous legislation in the period 2014 to 2020. It adds that the CAP Strategic Plans are to explain how they intend to achieve such a greater overall contribution.
130
In addition, it should be recalled that the new delivery model on which Regulation 2021/2115 is based aims to promote more subsidiarity by conferring on the Member States an additional margin of discretion in the specific arrangement of the interventions contained in each CAP Strategic Plan.
131
To that end, Regulation 2021/2115 sets the basic parameters for implementing the CAP, namely the EU objectives, the types of intervention and the common requirements compliance with which is ensured by the Commission in the context of the approval procedure provided for in Article 118 of that regulation.
132
In that context, Regulation 2021/2115 does not include any adjustment mechanism either for interventions within the intervention strategy in terms of their contribution to achieving the specific environment and climate objectives or for role of the CAP Strategic Plan in the achievement of the long-term national target values relating to environmental and climate objectives.
133
Thus, Regulation 2021/2115 requires each Member State to draw up a CAP Strategic Plan which makes an effective contribution to the achievement of the specific objectives set out in Article 6(1) and (2) of that regulation, the achievement of which is measured by means of indicators and target values.
134
Nevertheless, Regulation 2021/2115 does not impose on the Member States an obligation as to the result to be achieved when implementing the CAP, but rather an obligation of means. The wording of the general and specific objectives confirms that Member States are not required to achieve a specific and precisely quantified result. In that regard, Article 5(b) of that regulation provides that support from the EAGF and the EAFRD is to contribute to the achievement of various general objectives, including that to ‘support and strengthen environmental protection’. Thus, as regards specific environment and climate objectives, Article 6(2)(d) to (f) of that regulation states that the aid is intended to ‘contribute to climate change mitigation and … promote sustainable energy’, to ‘foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural resources’ and to ‘contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss … and preserve habitats and landscapes’.
135
Therefore, the Commission must assess, following an overall approach, in the context of its compatibility check, the effective contribution of the proposed CAP Strategic Plan to the achievement of the general and specific objectives by examining the intervention strategy in terms of both its level of ambition and its ability to produce the expected effects to satisfy the obligation as to the results to be achieved by the Member States, including the specific environment and climate objectives.
136
In the present case, in Section 3.2 of the annex to the contested decision, the Commission explains that its role, with regard to the assessment provided for in Article 118(2) of Regulation 2021/2115, consists in verifying whether the information and justifications furnished by the Member State are complete, whether they clearly, coherently, logically, concisely and credibly explain the functioning of the intervention strategy and, as regards interventions, their effective contribution to the specific environment and climate objectives, their coherence with other interventions contributing to the specific objectives and compliance of each intervention with the general and specific requirements of that regulation applicable to that intervention. The Commission states, as regards the environmental and climate architecture, that it verifies its compliance with the requirements of Article 109(2)(a) of that regulation, including its contribution and consistency with the long-term national target values.
137
In addition, the Commission, in Section 3.3 of the annex to the contested decision, recalled in paragraphs 104 and 107 above, confirms that it must verify, in the context of the approval procedure, both the effective contribution of the intervention strategy contained in the CAP Strategic Plan and its constituent elements to the general and specific objectives and the compatibility of that plan with the requirements of EU law exhaustively listed in Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115. It takes care to make clear that it is indeed a matter of ensuring that the Member States fulfil the obligations of means imposed on them by that regulation.
138
It is not apparent from the contested decision that the Commission considered that, in the context of the procedure for approving the French Plan, it had to limit itself to an overall assessment of that plan without verifying the measures contained therein. On the contrary, it is apparent from the contested decision that the Commission considers that its check must cover all the elements of the proposed CAP Strategic Plan since it is required to assess not only the individual effects of the measures, but also their combined effects.
139
It follows that the second complaint of the first part and, consequently, the first part of the first plea in law must be rejected as unfounded.
3.
The third part of the first plea in law, alleging that the Commission vitiated the contested decision by a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the French Plan satisfied the essential elements of Regulation 2021/2115
140
The applicants consider that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in Section 4.1 of the annex to the contested decision in finding that the French Plan satisfied the essential elements of Regulation 2021/2115 in relation to the environment and climate. They submit that points of non-compliance with essential elements of that regulation were not corrected in the revised version of the French Plan proposal, in particular as regards the specific environmental and climate objectives of reducing GHG emissions, protecting water resources and preserving and restoring biodiversity.
…
143
It should be noted that, by the third part of the first plea in law, the applicants essentially criticise the Commission for having vitiated the contested decision by a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the French Plan was compatible with the specific environment and climate objectives.
144
Moreover, the applicants also criticise the Commission, in their second, third and fourth pleas in law, for having committed several manifest errors of assessment in considering that the approval decision was compatible with the specific environment and climate objectives.
145
Accordingly, it is appropriate to join the examination of the third part of the first plea in law, concerning compliance with the specific environment and climate objectives, to the examination of the second, third and fourth pleas in law.
146
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the first plea in law must be rejected as partly ineffective and partly unfounded and reference must be had to the examination of the second, third and fourth pleas in law as to the remainder.
…
E. The third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment relating to the contribution of the French Plan to the achievement of specific objective E and to the long-term national target values relating to that objective
223
The third plea in law is divided into two parts, alleging, first, a manifest error of assessment as to the effective contribution of the intervention strategy in the French Plan to specific objective E, in particular the protection of water resources, and, secondly, a manifest error of assessment as regards the effective contribution of the French Plan to the achievement of the long-term national target values for the protection of water resources deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) and from Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1).
1.
The first part of the third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as to the effective contribution of the intervention strategy in the French Plan to specific objective E, in particular the protection of water resources
224
The applicants claim that the Commission vitiated the contested decision by a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the intervention strategy in the French Plan made an effective contribution to the protection of water resources, set out in the context of specific objective E, when it does not allow for a reduction in the use of pesticides on account of non-compliance with GAEC standard 7 and with the eco-scheme as are defined by Regulation 2021/2115.
225
The first part of the third plea in law is subdivided into five complaints, alleging, first, the priority of reducing the use of pesticides in the context of achieving specific objective E; second, the inadequacy of the examination logic used by the Commission to assess the contribution of the intervention strategy to specific objective E; third, the non-compliance of the French Plan with GAEC standard 7 provided for in Article 13 of Regulation 2021/2115; fourth, the non-compliance of the French Plan with the eco-scheme provided for in Article 31 of that regulation and, fifth, the inability of the intervention strategy to achieve specific objective E owing to the limits associated with the conditions for the implementation of GAEC standard 7 and the eco-scheme by the French authorities.
…
(c)
The third complaint, alleging the non-compliance of GAEC standard 7 as implemented by the French Plan with Article 13 of Regulation 2021/2115 and the minimum requirements laid down by that regulation
246
As has been recalled in paragraphs 103 and 135 above, under Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115, the Commission must ensure that each proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan is compatible with certain requirements of EU law, in particular the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the provisions of Regulation 2021/2115 and Regulation 2021/2116 and the provisions of the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to those regulations. That compatibility check requires an assessment not only of the effective contribution of the intervention strategy of each plan to the achievement of the specific objectives following an overall approach, but also of the absence of any conflict between the measures contained therein and the minimum requirements of EU law set out by that article.
247
In the third complaint of the first part of the third plea in law, the applicants claim that GAEC standard 7 as implemented by the French Plan complies neither with Article 13(1) of Regulation 2021/2115 nor with the minimum requirements of Annex III to that regulation, which constitutes an infringement of Article 118(4) of the same regulation. Moreover, derogations from the general rule of annual crop rotation are permitted only at the level of regions or farms with certain characteristics. In addition, the assessment of the overall contribution of conditionality to the specific objectives does not preclude a concrete assessment of the GAEC standards as implemented by the CAP Strategic Plan, as is apparent from Article 109(2)(a)(ii) of the said regulation.
248
The Commission, supported by the French Republic, disputes the applicants’ arguments. In its view, the implementation of GAEC standard 7 by the French Plan meets the minimum requirements laid down in Article 13(1) of Regulation 2021/2115 and specified in Annex III to that regulation, which allow Member States to implement that standard with a degree of flexibility in order to take account of the diversity of farming methods and conditions in the various regions of the country. Moreover, exceptions are possible provided that they ensure the achievement of the main objective pursued by GAEC standard 7, namely the preservation of soil potential. The French Plan would fully ensure that objective while implementing longer-term rotation, providing flexibility in the event of adverse climatic conditions and taking into account regional differences. In that regard, at the level of the land parcel, in accordance with Article 13 of the said regulation, the obligation laid down by GAEC standard 7 is satisfied either by changing the main crop every two years or by a secondary crop cultivated each year.
249
In the present case, it is apparent from Section 4.3 of the annex to the contested decision that, in response to the request for internal review, the Commission considered that, on the one hand, GAEC standard 7 did not constitute an intervention within the meaning of Article 111 of Regulation 2021/2115 and thus did not form part of the performance framework provided for in that regulation even though it is essential as a minimum requirement and a basis for certain interventions. On the other hand, GAEC standard 7, as a conditionality requirement which must be met by all farmers, is not relevant for assessing the contribution of the French Plan to result indicator R.24.
250
As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, in the context of an internal review under Article 10(1) of the Aarhus Regulation, the party requesting the review may claim that the act referred to in the request for review is contrary to environmental law.
251
In that regard, GAEC standard 7, given its objective of preserving the soil potential by means of primary or secondary crop rotation on arable land, contributes to the pursuit of the objectives of EU policy on the environment, in particular preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. Thus, that standard falls within the concept of ‘environmental law’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 July 2023, EIB and Commission v ClientEarth, C‑212/21 P and C‑223/21 P, EU:C:2023:546, paragraphs 83 to 87).
252
It should be noted that it is apparent from the very wording of Article 13(1) of Regulation 2021/2115 that the task of ensuring that all agricultural areas are maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition lies with the Member States. To that end, they must set, at national or regional level, minimum standards for each GAEC standard listed in Annex III to that regulation, in line with the main objective of those standards referred to in that annex. Moreover, when setting their minimum standards, Member States must take into account, where relevant, the specific characteristics of the areas concerned including soil and climatic condition, existing farming systems, farming practices, farm size and farm structures, land use and the specificities of the outermost regions.
253
It follows that the Member States are required to establish minimum standards for each GAEC standard listed in Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115. Such an approach is confirmed by recital 43 of that regulation. However, while the Member States are therefore bound, when defining those requirements, to comply with that annex, it nevertheless leaves them, by using general concepts and terms, a certain discretion with regard to the actual determination of those standards (see, by analogy, judgment of 7 August 2018, Argo Kalda Mardi talu, C‑435/17, EU:C:2018:637, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
254
Thus, the extent of the discretion afforded to the Member States in defining GAEC standards depends, in particular, on their wording or degree of precision in EU law, that is to say, in this case, on the content of Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115.
255
Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115 provides that the main objective of GAEC standard 7 is the preservation of soil potential. In that regard, a footnote clarifies the meaning of ‘rotation’. According to it, rotation consists of a change of crop at least once a year at land parcel level, including the appropriately managed secondary crops, except in case of multiannual crops, grasses and other herbaceous forage and land lying fallow.
256
It must be pointed out that, although GAEC standard 7 is worded in general terms, the wording of the footnote, to which Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115 refers, sets out precisely the minimum requirements for crop rotation and any adaptations and exemptions in that regard.
257
It follows that the Member States’ discretion in determining GAEC standard 7 cannot undermine the minimum crop rotation requirements recalled in paragraph 255 above.
258
In the present case, GAEC standard 7, as implemented by the French Plan, provides that compliance with that standard is to be assessed according to two cumulative criteria, the first at farm level and the second at parcel level, as was confirmed by the French Republic at the hearing.
259
At farm level, the French Plan fixes an annual crop rotation criterion, namely that, on at least 35% of the cultivated area of a farm, the main crop must be different from that of the previous year or be followed by a secondary crop.
260
At parcel level, the French Plan requires either two different main crops over a four-year period or a secondary crop every year over the same period, except for ‘seed maize’ areas. There is also a derogation based on the diversification of specific crops for farms located in the Rhine Plain area and several exemptions.
261
In that regard, it should be noted that the first criterion, recalled in paragraph 259 above, uses different terminology from that of Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115 without any particular justification.
262
In addition, that same criterion introduces an additional parameter not provided for in Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115. It limits to 35% the proportion of arable land covered by the rotation requirement as defined in that annex. The French Plan provides no explanation for the inclusion of that parameter below the minimum requirements within the criteria of GAEC standard 7. That limitation restricts the scope of the rotation requirement and therefore that of the main objective of that standard, referred to in that annex, namely the preservation of soil potential.
263
The second criterion, recalled in paragraph 260 above, introduces the possibility of choosing between a multiannual rotation of the main crop or an annual rotation of the secondary crop. That criterion requires the presence of either two main crops over a four-year period or one secondary crop each year. However, such an alternative does not appear to be consistent with Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115 which states that rotation is to consist in a change of crop at least once a year at land parcel level, including appropriately managed secondary crops.
264
It follows that the combination of those two cumulative criteria leads to a less frequent crop rotation on a smaller amount of cultivated land compared to the minimum requirements fixed by Regulation 2021/2115.
265
On the one hand, however, it is apparent from the contested decision that the two grounds relied on by the Commission and recalled in paragraph 249 above were not capable of providing a legal basis for that decision, in that they do not establish that the conditions for the implementation of GAEC standard 7 by the French authorities, as approved by the approval decision, were in conformity with the regulatory definition of that standard. On the other hand, the Commission merely considered that GAEC standard 7 as implemented by the French Plan contributed to reducing pesticide use because of the effects of the crop rotation provided for in the plan, without taking account of the fact that those minimum requirements had not been met.
266
Accordingly, the applicants have demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that the Commission vitiated the contested decision by a manifest error of assessment in rejecting as unfounded the ground for internal review alleging that the conditions for the implementation of GAEC standard 7 provided for by the French Plan and endorsed by the approval decision infringed the minimum requirements of Article 13(1) of Regulation 2021/2115 and Annex III thereto.
…
(e)
The fifth complaint, alleging that the intervention strategy in the French Plan did not make an effective contribution to specific objective E
302
The applicants claim that the intervention strategy in the French Plan, in particular in so far as it specifies the conditions for implementing GAEC standard 7 and the eco-scheme, is not capable of achieving specific objective E and meeting the priority need to reduce pesticides in the French agricultural sector.
303
As regards GAEC standard 7, the applicants consider that, even if such a standard is not classified as an intervention within the meaning of Article 111 of Regulation 2021/2115, it constitutes a lever used by the French Plan in order to justify its level of ambition in reducing pesticide dependency.
304
As regards the eco-scheme, on the one hand, the applicants submit that the crop diversification practice path is not likely to have a cumulative effect on all farms, but only on those which are already diversified. The Commission, in its observations, alerted the French Republic as to the insufficient ambition of that path. On the other hand, the certification path is not capable of responding to the priority need to reduce pesticide use and also compromises the achievement of target values to that effect by diverting farmers from the practices path. Moreover, the applicants consider that farms have no financial interest in complying with all of the commitments of a number of paths for accessing the eco-scheme.
305
The Commission, supported by the French Republic, disputes the applicants’ arguments.
306
As has been recalled in paragraph 246 above, in the context of its compatibility check, the Commission must assess, following an overall approach, the effective contribution of the intervention strategy for each CAP Strategic Plan proposal to the achievement of all the specific objectives of Regulation 2021/2115.
307
First, in the light of paragraphs 252 to 266 above, it is necessary to examine the consequences of the existence of plausible doubts as to the compliance of GAEC standard 7 implemented by the French Plan with the minimum requirements of Regulation 2021/2115 on the assessment of the effective contribution of its intervention strategy to specific objective E, in the context of the Commission’s compatibility check, under Article 118(4) of Regulation 2021/2115.
308
In that regard, it should be recalled that, according to Article 12(1) of Regulation 2021/2115, GAEC standard 7 constitutes a conditionality requirement.
309
In accordance with Article 109(2) of Regulation 2021/2115, the intervention strategy for each CAP Strategic Plan must demonstrate its consistency and the complementarity of interventions across the various specific objectives. To do so, each CAP Strategic Plan must present an overview of its environmental and climate architecture describing, inter alia, first, for each GAEC standard, the way in which the standard is implemented and, where necessary, a description of how the practice contributes to achieving that standard’s main objective, secondly, in respect of conditionality as a whole, its overall contribution to achieving the specific environment and climate objectives and, thirdly, the complementarity between the relevant baseline conditions, conditionality and the different interventions addressing the same specific environment and climate objectives.
310
In addition, according to Annex III to Regulation 2021/2115, the main objective of GAEC standard 7 is the preservation of soil potential, which is pursued by specific objective E.
311
In the present case, it is apparent from the contested decision that the Commission examined the requirements, including GAEC standard 7, in relation to specific objective E, following the presentation made by the French Plan as regards its environmental and climate architecture. According to the French Plan, conditionality makes it possible to achieve specific objective E through GAEC standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.
312
Therefore, any compatibility issues affecting GAEC standard 7 in the French Plan are likely to have repercussions on the environmental and climate architecture of that plan and therefore on the overall assessment of the effective contribution of the intervention strategy in the French Plan to the achievement of specific objective E.
313
Nevertheless, in so far as the Commission’s compatibility check is based on an overall approach to the effective contribution of each CAP Strategic Plan to the achievement of specific objectives, it is for the applicants to establish the influence of the non-compliance, of a conditionality standard of the French Plan, with the minimum requirements laid down by Regulation 2021/2115, in the present case GAEC standard 7 and Article 13 of that regulation, on the plausibility of the Commission’s assessment as to the effective contribution of the intervention strategy of that CAP Strategic Plan as regards specific objective E.
314
The applicants merely assert, however, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in approving the French Plan when the GAEC standard 7 contained therein does not comply with the minimum requirements of Regulation 2021/2115.
315
However, in the contested decision, the Commission considered that the environmental and climate architecture of the French Plan demonstrated the effective contribution of the intervention strategy to achieving specific objective E through, inter alia, the overall contribution of all the interventions related to that objective and conditionality and the complementarity of those interventions, the relevant baseline conditions and that conditionality in connection with the said objective.
316
It follows that the assessment of the effective contribution of the French Plan to specific objective E may still be accepted as true or valid.
317
Secondly, the applicants have not adduced any evidence capable of calling into question the plausibility of the Commission’s explanations in Section 4.3 of the annex to the contested decision as regards the cumulative effect of the eco-scheme commitments through crop diversification practices and the absence of such an effect between the different paths of the eco-scheme, with the exception of the ‘hedge bonus’ under the eco-scheme which may be cumulated with the other paths of that eco-scheme recalled in paragraph 285 above.
318
Thirdly, the applicants do not substantiate their argument that the ambition of the measures contributing to crop diversification is insufficient. It follows from paragraph 38 of the Commission’s observations under Article 118(3) of Regulation 2021/2115, cited by the applicants in support of their argument, that that institution merely encouraged the French Republic to increase the ambition of the measures contributing to crop diversification in order better to incentivise the establishment of crop rotation throughout the territory.
319
Fourthly, as regards the ability of the certification path of the eco-scheme both to meet the priority need to reduce the use of pesticides and to move farmers away from the practices path, the applicants have not demonstrated to the requisite legal standard, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 18 and 19 above, that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. The applicants have not adduced any evidence capable of calling into question the plausibility of the Commission’s explanations in Section 4.3 of the annex to the contested decision according to which not only does that path contribute to meeting the said need but also that account must be taken of the objectives of each path of the eco-scheme in order to assess its overall role within the environmental and climate architecture of the French Plan.
320
In the light of the foregoing, the third complaint of the first part of the third plea in law must be upheld and the other complaints must be rejected.
2.
The second part of the third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the contribution of the French Plan to the achievement of the long-term national target values for the protection of water resources
…
337
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the third plea in law must be rejected, with the exception of the manifest error of assessment found in paragraph 266 above.
F. The fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment as regards the contribution of the French Plan to the achievement of specific objective F
…
3.
The third part, alleging that the intervention strategy in the French Plan did not make an effective contribution to needs F.2, F.3 and F.4
…
(e)
The inadequacy of the aid for organic farming to meet needs F.2, F.3 and F.4
…
379
In the light of all the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in rejecting as unfounded the ground for internal review alleging that the conditions for the implementation of GAEC standard 7 provided for by the French Plan and endorsed by the approval decision infringed the minimum requirements of Article 13(1) of Regulation 2021/2115 and of Annex III thereto.
380
It must be determined whether the illegality found is capable of leading to the annulment in whole or only in part of the contested decision.
381
In that regard, according to settled case-law, partial annulment of an act of the European Union is possible only if the elements which it is sought to have annulled can be severed from the remainder of the measure. That requirement of severability is not satisfied where the partial annulment of a measure would have the effect of altering its substance (see judgment of 10 May 2023, Ryanair v Commission (SAS II; COVID-19), T‑238/21, not published, EU:T:2023:247, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).
382
In addition, it must be recalled that a request for internal review of an administrative act is intended to establish that, as alleged, the act in question is unlawful or that it is not well founded (judgment of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission, C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraph 38).
383
In the present case, it must be noted that the contested decision is structured in four sections in order to respond to the request for internal review. Section 1 concerns the approval procedure of the CAP Strategic Plan, Section 2 concerns the ‘Assessment of the admissibility of the request for internal review’, Section 3 concerns the ‘CAP legal framework and standard for review of [the] Commission implementing decision adopted under Article 118(4) [of Regulation 2021/2115]’ and Section 4 concerns the ‘Assessment of the grounds for internal review of [the] Commission Implementing Decision approving the CAP Strategic Plan of France’.
384
Thus, although the contested decision responds to the grounds for review invoked in a four-section structure mirroring the way in which the request for review is structured, it is not divisible. As is apparent in particular from paragraphs 103 and 138 above, in accordance with the logic of the check entrusted to the Commission by the provisions of Regulation 2021/2115 in the context of the procedure for approval of a CAP Strategic Plan, that institution did not carry out an independent analysis of each ground, but an overall examination of the French Plan in relation to those grounds for review. That results in an interdependence between the four sections of the contested decision. As a result, it is not possible to separate the section of the contested decision vitiated by a manifest error of assessment from the other sections thereof owing to the logic of the Commission’s review or even to draw consequences from it for the outcome of the request for internal review. Nor, moreover, does the operative part of the contested decision appear to be divisible in so far as the Commission concludes that the request for internal review is unfounded in the light of the assessment of all the grounds for review submitted.
385
Consequently, the action must be upheld and the contested decision annulled in its entirety.
…
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition)
hereby:
1.
Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 5 May 2023 rejecting the request of ClientEarth and Collectif Nourrir for internal review of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 6012 final of 31 August 2022 approving the 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan of France for Union support financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development;
2.
Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ClientEarth and Collectif Nourrir;
3.
Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
Truchot
Kanninen
Sampol Pucurull
Perišin
Meyer
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 October 2025.
[Signatures]
(
*1
)	Language of the case: French.
(
1
)	Only the paragraphs of the present judgment which the Court considers it appropriate to publish are reproduced here.