Case C-237/24 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2024 by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2024 in Case T-56/22, United Kingdom v Commission
Date: 2024-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU direct payments, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, farmer








C_202403064EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3064


13.5.2024






Appeal brought on 28 March 2024 by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2024 in Case T-56/22, United Kingdom v Commission


(Case C-237/24 P)

(C/2024/3064)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Fuller, Agent, and T. Buley, KC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of active farmer – connected companies;










—


order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs of the proceedings in the General Court and of the appeal.





Plea in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on a single plea in law, namely that the General Court’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 1307/2013 (2) was wrong. The appellant argues that Article 9(2) is concerned only with direct payments to farmers who themselves operate the relevant infrastructure or services.
In summary this is because:






(i)


the language of Article 9(2) does not, read literally and in accordance with its natural meaning, have the effect of prohibiting payments to a farmer merely because some connected entity undertakes an activity on the negative list in Article 9(2);










(ii)


this interpretation of Article 9(2) is strongly reinforced by the fact that the key phrase in Article 9(2) on which the General Court relies, namely “natural or legal persons, or to groups of natural or legal persons”, itself simply reproduces wording from the definition of “farmer” in Article 4(1);










(iii)


there is no purposive or teleological basis for the General Court’s interpretation of Article 9(2), which does not accord with the purposes of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 1307/2013.






(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2019 of 17 November 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2021) 8164) (OJ 2021 L 413, p. 3).

(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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3064/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)