Case T-350/20: Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Czechia, EU budget, EU direct payments, aid to agriculture, conflict of interest, head of government, implementation of the budget, multiannual financial framework, right of action, trust company








C_2020271EN.01004101.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/41






Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission
(Case T-350/20)
(2020/C 271/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (Pardubice, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Dolejská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the European Commission failed, according to Article 325(1) and Article 319(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) to take a binding and deterrent measure aimed at preventing or addressing the conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, by not having adopted a binding measure:






—


preventing the members of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, from meeting and from discussing issues with the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, related to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) of the EU for 2021 — 2027 and the EU budget in general;










—


stopping disbursements of direct agricultural payments from the EU budget to certain companies of which the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, is a controlling person and beneficial owner.









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 sent to the European Commission, by a letter of 30 January 2020, a call to act under Article 265 TFEU, but the European Commission, in its reply, did not address the contents of the applicant’s call and provided him with an answer on a completely different subject.






—


The Commission received the invitation to act from the applicant and, although it replied to this invitation, it did not adopt in its reply any position as to the applicant’s invitation to avoid meetings and discussions with the Czech Prime Minister concerning the 2021-2027 MFF and the failure of the Commission to stop disbursements of direct agricultural payments to companies of certain groups, of which the Czech Prime Minister is a controlling person and a beneficial owner. Instead of giving the answer relating to the illegal disbursement of direct agricultural subsidies to those groups, the Commission provided information on the stopping of investment structural and investment agricultural funds to one of those groups, which is a different subject that was not the subject of the applicant’s call to act. On the second part of the applicant’s call, to the effect that the European Commission officers should not meet and discuss the 2021-2027 MFF with Mr Andrej Babiš, the Commission stayed entirely silent.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant is directly concerned by the failure of the European Commission to act since: (i) no other intermediary act is necessary in order to prevent a member of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, from meeting and discussing with the Czech Prime Minister the 2021-2027 MFF; and (ii) the legal situation of the applicant is affected due to his being an elected representative of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic charged with investigation of the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, as a member of a special Senate Committee established for this purpose, from which the Commission was illegally withholding documents to inhibit its investigative mission.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging individual concern of the applicant by the omission of the European Commission to act against the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Andrej Babiš, and his interest to act arises out of: (i) the applicant’s constitutional duty to control the correct adoption of EU legal acts, including the EU budget (MFF 2021-2027); (ii) the applicant’s constitutional duty entailing the right to control the Czech Prime Minister when meeting the members of the College of Commissioners, including the duty to exercise responsibly the function of the member of the aforementioned special Committee of the Senate; (iii) election of the applicant in the 2018 elections to the Senate of the Czech Republic and his being in competition with candidates of the ‘ANO’ party controlled by the Czech Prime Minister; (iv) the fact that the applicant received the same death threats as received by the MEPs of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) of the European Parliament in February 2020 due to both of them trying to act against the conflict of interest of Andrej Babiš.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that a denial of justice would be committed if a member of the national parliament of an EU Member State would be denied standing in this case, as he would be prevented from exercising even an indirect control via the Court of Justice of the European Union over the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU institutional system.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that there is a violation by the Commission of its obligation to act against the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Andrej Babiš, under Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 319(3) TFEU, in conjunction with the Resolution of the European Parliament of 13 December 2018 (2) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. All conditions for the Commission to act have been fulfilled, namely: (i) the existence of a conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš; (ii) the participation of Mr. Andrej Babiš in the acts preparatory to EU budget implementation; and (iii) the fact that the conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš constitutes an ‘other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union’ within the meaning of Article 325 (1) TFEU. The Commission has therefore been obliged to act, yet it failed to act, as it did not adopt deterrent measures to neutralise the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister under its obligation set out in Article 319(3) and Article 325(1) TFEU and the second sentence of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Instead, since 2 August 2018, members of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, continued to meet and discuss with the Czech Prime Minister the 2021-2027 MFF, and the Commission continued to disburse direct agricultural payments, in violation of the conflict of interest prohibition, to companies of certain groups of which Andrej Babiš is a controlling person and beneficial owner.






(1)  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).

(2)  ‘Conflict of interest and the protection of the EU budget in the Czech Republic’, European Parliament resolution P8_TA (2018) 0530 of 13 December 2018 (2018/2975(RSP))