Action brought on 22 Januar y 2021 — Romania v Commission
(Case T-33/21)
(2021/C 163/50)
Language of the case: Romanian
Parties
Applicant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane and L. Bațagoi, acting as Agents)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Cour t should:
—annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European 
Union financ ing certain expenditure incur red by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
(EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), as regards the expenditure, in a 
total amount of EUR 18 717 475,08, incur red by Romania’s accredit ed paying agency and declared under the EAFRD, 
which represents a flat-rate correction (25 %) applied to payments made in the financ ial years 2017, 2018 and 2019 
under sub-measure 1a of measure 215 of the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2007-2013;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In suppor t of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging the unlawful use, by the Commission, of the power to exclude amounts from Union financ ing 
under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, in breach of Articles 76 to 78 of Regulation No 1605/2002, 
Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005, and Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014, as well as the 
principles of legal certainty , legitimat e expectations and sound administration
—After approvi ng the methods for calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a and the results thereof through 
the adoption of Implementing Decision C(2012)3529 final approvi ng the revision of Romania’s rural development 
programme for the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission should have take n responsibility where those 
payments were considered contrar y to Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005 after subsequent audits.
—At the same time, the Commission wrong ly concluded, after the audits had been conducte d, that the methods for 
calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a had led to overcompensation of benefi ciaries, thereby infringing 
Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005.
—The Commission misapplied both Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014 and its own Guidelines on the 
calculation of the financial corrections when it established the reason to apply the corrections and the type of 
corrections to be applied.
—The cont ested decision infringes the principle of the prot ection of legitimat e expectations, since, by adop ting 
Imp lementing Decision C(2012)3529 final, the Commission create d legitimate expectations both for the Romanian 
author ities and for benefi ciaries in relation to the regular ity of the methods for calculating the payments relating to 
sub-measure 1a and the results thereof.
—The Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and sound administration through its conduct, which 
consiste d in diverg ent positions and a late reply to the Romanian author ities in relation to a situation which the 
Commission itself had created.3.5.2021 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union C 163/37
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
—As regards sub-measure 1a, the Commission did not set out a suffi cient and adequat e statement of reasons, either 
with respect to the fact that the alleg edly incor rect calculation methods constitute a situation which is among the 
scenar ios gove rned by Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014 or an instance of unlawful conduct for the 
purposes of the Commission’s Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections, or with rega rd to its 
changing position in relation to the lega l classif ication of the alleg edly incor rect calculation methods.
(1) OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.
Action brought on 3 Febr uary 2021 — Sistem ecologica v Commission
(Case T-81/21)
(2021/C 163/51)
Language of the case: Engl ish
Parties
Applicant: ‘Sist em ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac (Srbac, Bosnia-Herzegovina) (represented by: 
D. Diris, D. Rjabyni na, and C. Kocks, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Cour t should:
—declare unlawful OLAF’s failure to take , in regard to it, the measures laid down by the relevant rules, namely , to notify it 
of the decision to open inquir ies or an investigation concer ning it individually , to inform it of inquir ies or investig ations 
liable to imp licate it personally , and to enable it to express its views on all the facts concer ning it before conclusions 
relating to it individually are drawn from those inquir ies or investigations;
—annul the decision take n by OLAF on 25 November 2020 refusing the applicant’s request to grant access to its 
investig ation file;
—annul the decision take n by OLAF on 25 November 2020 to consider the applicant’s comments of 16 Octo ber 2020 as 
com plaints;
—annul the decision taken by OLAF on 27 November 2020 rejecting the applicant’s com plaints of 16 Octob er 2020;
—annul the decision taken by OLAF on 8 December 2020 that the investig ation concer ning it was closed;
—annul the decision taken by OLAF on 21 December 2020 that the applicant’s complaints of 14 December 2020 will not 
be considered as complaints;
—declare that the information and data relating to it and any relevant evidence forwarded to the national author ities 
constitute inadmissible evidence, among which OLAF’s mission repor t of 16 Januar y 2020, communication of 9 June 
2020, and final repor t of 8 December 2020;
—declare any investigative procedures carried out in the invest igation followi ng the aforementioned decisions unla wful;
—declare any conclusions drawn from those invest igations unlawful;C 163/38 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union 3.5.2021