do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-19/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — Lithuania v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Lithuania — One-off and flat-rate financial corrections — Rural development — Cross-compliance control system — Administrative control — On-the-spot check — Quality of the checks — Quality of the applicants — Artificial conditions — Reasonableness of the costs — Expenditure incurred through projects — Risk analysis — Risk factors — Tolerance regarding penalties which is not provided for under EU legislation — Assessment and penalty system which is too lenient — Annual statistical control data)
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU aid, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, reimbursement of aid, risk management, rural development, sanction (EU)








C_2020077EN.01004201.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/42






Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — Lithuania v Commission
(Case T-19/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Lithuania - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Rural development - Cross-compliance control system - Administrative control - On-the-spot check - Quality of the checks - Quality of the applicants - Artificial conditions - Reasonableness of the costs - Expenditure incurred through projects - Risk analysis - Risk factors - Tolerance regarding penalties which is not provided for under EU legislation - Assessment and penalty system which is too lenient - Annual statistical control data)
(2020/C 77/60)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič, V. Vasiliauskienė, M. Palionis and A. Dapkuvienė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, A. Steiblytė and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula, J. Vláčil and S. Šindelková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017, L 292, p. 61), in so far as it provides for the imposition on the Republic of Lithuania of a financial correction of EUR 9 745 705,88 regarding expenditure connected with EAFRD and a financial correction of EUR 546 351,91 regarding expenditure connected with EAGF and EAFRD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case C-814/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Ursa Major Services BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 — Article 55(1) — Financial contribution by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) — Eligibility of expenditure — Condition — Expenditure actually paid by the beneficiaries — Meaning)
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, common fisheries policy, debt, eligibility criteria, financial aid, invoicing








C_2020077EN.01000502.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Ursa Major Services BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
(Case C-814/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 - Article 55(1) - Financial contribution by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) - Eligibility of expenditure - Condition - Expenditure actually paid by the beneficiaries - Meaning)
(2020/C 77/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ursa Major Services BV

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 55(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund must be interpreted as being applicable to the relationship between the managing authority of an operational programme and the beneficiary of a subsidy granted under the European Fisheries Fund, so that that provision can be invoked against that beneficiary;










2.


Article 55(1) of Regulation No 1198/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that an amount invoiced to the beneficiary of a subsidy granted under the European Fisheries Fund and paid by him may be regarded as expenditure actually paid, as referred to in that provision, even if the third party who invoiced that amount has also made a financial contribution to the subsidised project, either by a set-off of the debt owed to him by the beneficiary against that beneficiary’s claim against him, stemming from his commitment to make a contribution, or by issuing a separate invoice, provided that the expenditure and the contribution concerned are duly supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.