Case C-140/24 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2024 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2023 in Case T-48/22 Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, farmer, grassland, infringement of EU law








C_202402601EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2601


22.4.2024






Appeal brought on 22 February 2024 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2023 in Case T-48/22 Czech Republic v Commission


(Case C-140/24 P)

(C/2024/2601)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, J. Očková and J. Benešová, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul point 2 of the operative part and the corresponding part of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-48/22;










—


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2020 to the extent to which it excludes expenditure amounting in total to EUR 25 596 118,58;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant puts forward eight grounds.
The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (1) read in conjunction with Article 9(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013. (2) The General Court is to have erred in law when it concluded that in checking whether the applicant for support is an active farmer, related companies must be taken into account. That requirement is not apparent from any provision of EU law. The concept of a group of natural or legal persons is expressly based on the definition of a farmer set out in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1307/2013, and thus means an organisation of farmers in the form governed by national law, and not a related company.
The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 read in conjunction with Article 9(2), third subparagraph, of Regulation No 1307/2013. The General Court is to have erred in law when it concluded that, in overturning the negative presumption concerning the status of active farmer, the same criterion cannot be used to demonstrate that the applicant’s agricultural activities are not insignificant and that they are the principle object of its business or company activities, even though both those conditions overlap in content and Regulation No 639/2014 (3) expressly provides for the possibility to use alternative criteria, the only limitation being the capacity of the chosen criterion to show that the agricultural activity of the applicant for support is not merely marginal.
The third ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The General Court is to have erred in law and distorted the facts when it concluded that the Czech Republic had failed to demonstrate the disproportionate nature of the financial correction imposed in connection with the proof of active farmer status, despite the evidence annexed by the Czech Republic to the application.
The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, read in conjunction with the principle of sound administration, the principle of legitimate expectations and Article 34(1) of Regulation No 908/2014. (4) The General Court is to have misinterpreted the legal situation by failing in its decision to have regard to the fact that the financial correction concerning permanent grassland was imposed despite the Commission’s own finding as to the inexistence of an infringement of EU law.
The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and Article 34 of Regulation No 908/2014. The General Court is to have erred in law when in found that the time limits set out in Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 34 of Regulation No 908/2014 applied not only to the sending of information regarding the determination of the financial correction, but also to the sending of information regarding the existence of an infringement of EU law. It thereby restricted the Member State’s right to judicial review of whether there had been an infringement of EU law, which is an essential pre-condition for the imposition of a financial correction.
The sixth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The General Court is to have distorted the facts when it concluded that the Czech Republic, during the audit mission AA/2017/010/CZ, did not provide sufficient evidence of the correct functioning of the system of identification of permanent grassland and that that evidence was not provided until the follow-up audit mission AA/2020/012/CZ, inasmuch as the General Court failed to have regard to the evidence submitted by the Czech Republic in the application, which was expressly referred to in the pleas in law.
The seventh ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 72 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 13 of Regulation No 640/2014. (5) The General Court is to have erred in law when it took the view that the authentication of the submission under Czech law in the form of the addition of the handwritten signature after the expiry of the deadline laid down in Article 13 of Regulation No 640/2014 constitutes late submission of the application [for aid or payment]. The requirement for a handwritten signature is not a criterion for the admissibility of the application under EU law and follows only from national law.
The eighth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The General Court is to have erred in law when it failed to review the financial correction applied to appropriations in the context of the financial discipline scheme, which reflects the financial correction applied for the various support schemes, despite the fact that the judgment under appeal annulled a significant part of the financial correction applied for the various support schemes. The General Court is further to have distorted the facts when it held that the Commission did not have the data necessary to determine more accurately the financial correction in relation to the VCS support scheme, even though the evidence annexed to the application attests to the contrary.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608)

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1)

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).

(5)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2601/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)