A.

Infringement of Articles 263 and 297 TFEU, and failure to observe the principle of legal certainty i. The General Court did not correctly legally assess whether the notification was complete and correct and incorrectly classified the notification issued by the Commission as capable of triggering the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU. This approach by the General Court is also at odds with the principle of legal certainty. Romania considers that the presence of any errors relating to the essential elements of a decision such as Decision 2018/873 is capable of compromising the notification and raises serious issues from the point of view of the principle of legal certainty. Consequently, it is sufficient that some errors are present, such as those established by the General Court, for the notification issued by the Commission to be incapable of triggering the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU. The General Court classified the differences between the published and notified versions of Decision 2018/873 as minor, relying on the fact that the meaning of the text of the decision was unaltered, since the word ‘amount’ could only correspond to the ‘estimated by amount’ type of adjustment. Given that that type of adjustment does not exist, Romania considers that the legal reasoning of the General Court is incorrect and it can easily be observed that the meaning of the text of Decision 2018/873 has been affected, and that the notification has been compromised. ii. The General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 263 TFEU in the light of Article 297 TFEU by failing to take into consideration the effects of the publication of Decision 2018/873 in the Official Journal of the European Union from the point of view of effective information and the principle of legal certainty. According to the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, what is relevant in the context of exercising the right to bring proceedings is effective information relating to the content of the contested EU measure, and not the moment when it enters into force or the moment when it produces legal effects. The moment from which the period of 2 months for bringing an action for annulment of a measure such as Decision 2018/873, which must be notified but which, according to the consistent and long-standing practice of the issuer, must also be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, begins to run must be the moment of publication, plus the period of 14 days laid down by Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. That solution is all the more necessary in view of the specific circumstances in which Decision 2018/873 was notified to the Romanian authorities and published — circumstances which reveal differences between the notified text and the published text which concern essential elements of that decision. iii. The General Court failed to observe the principle of legal certainty by considering that one of the inconsistencies raised by Romania (concerning the type of adjustment — ‘estimated by amount’ versus ‘flat rate’) constitutes a minor clerical error which was made in the notified and published text but which was not made either in the course of the administrative procedure or in the summary report and which does not give rise to confusion as to the nature of the adjustment. iv. The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU by finding that the differences between the notified text and the text published in the Official Journal of the European Union concerning provisions of Decision 2018/873 addressed to other Member States of the European Union were irrelevant and without effect, in view of the privileged applicant status of Member States.