Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Primagra v Commission

(Case T-101/21)

(2021/C 163/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Primagra a.s. (Milín, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Sobolová and O. Billard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the ban on the provision of grants imposed by the letter of the defendant dated 22 October 2020, ARES (2020) 5759350;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s fundamental rights have been violated both directly and indirectly by the defendant, because the applicant has never been able to exercise its right to be heard in the course of the inquiry leading up to the adoption of the contested measure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has no competence to audit specific grants and to decide on specific applications for grants from the European Structural and Investment Funds, because the defendant is entitled only to examine the general conformity of the management and control systems implemented by the Member States, but has no authority at all to conduct a detailed audit and decide on specific grant applications submitted by individual companies.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has no competence to interpret and apply Member States’ internal law, because its competences are strictly limited by the principle of conferral set out in Articles 5 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union, any derogation from that principle must be appraised strictly, and the combination of the principle of conferral and the provisions of the Treaties clearly implies that the defendant is not competent to apply a Member State’s internal law. In any case, the Czech law provisions relied upon by the defendant cannot be reviewed under Regulation No 1303/2013 (1), which is the legal basis of the audit procedure leading up to the adoption of the contested measure.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not prove the content of the Czech law and erred in its interpretation and application. Instead of proving the content of the Czech law as required by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, the defendant grossly misinterpreted the Czech law and in particular Section 4c of the Conflict of Interest Act, deliberately ignoring the case law of Czech courts as well as the final, binding and enforceable decision of the Czech authorities relating to the subject matter of the audit procedure leading up to the adoption of the contested measure.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant also erred in the interpretation and application of EU law, because it wrongly concluded there was a breach of Article 61 of the Financial Regulation (2), and it failed to reflect that the Czech rules on conflicts of interest are in conflict with the basic principles of EU law.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).

(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).