Case T-310/24: Action brought on 14 June 2024 – Úsovsko Agro v Commission
Date: 2024-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Czechia, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, crop production, infringement procedure (EU), irrigation, principle of legal certainty








C_202405107EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5107


26.8.2024






Action brought on 14 June 2024 – Úsovsko Agro v Commission


(Case T-310/24)

(C/2024/5107)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Úsovsko Agro s. r. o. (Klopina, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Kubáč, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 5 April 2024 on the aid schemes SA.50787 (2021/C) (ex 2018/N) and SA.50837 (2021/C) (ex 2018/N) implemented by Czechia in favour of large enterprises active in primary agricultural production (‘the contested decision’), declaring the measures in favour of large enterprise beneficiaries active in primary agricultural production, for the restructuring of orchards and for the construction of drip irrigation in orchards, hop fields, vineyards and nurseries, unlawfully put into effect by Czechia before the notification of Decision C(2021)41 final, to be incompatible with the internal market;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the essential procedural requirement as the contested decision is not duly reasoned and suffers from contradictions and other shortcomings. In particular:






(i)


the operative part of the contested decision does not correspond to the statement of the reasons, and










(ii)


the operative part of the contested decision sets out unclear obligations.




Therefore, the Commission infringed the Applicant’s essential procedural right, since all EU institutions are obliged to state the reasons for the measure in question to ensure its reviewability before the courts. Furthermore, the Commission failed to comply with the principle of legal certainty, which requires that EU rules enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which are imposed on them and that those persons must be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and take steps accordingly.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made an error of law in concluding that the aid schemes SA.50787 (2021/C) (ex 2018/N) and SA.50837 (2021/C) (ex 2018/N) implemented by Czechia in favour of large enterprises active in primary agricultural production are incompatible with the internal market under Article 107(1) TFEU. The error of law is a result of several crucial errors that the Commission has made. In particular, the Commission:






(i)


ignored that compatibility of the aid is a substantive question of law, not a matter of procedure,










(ii)


disregarded comments crucial for an in-depth assessment of the aid compatibility,










(iii)


did not carry out in-depth analysis of the aid subject to the contested decision contrary to its previous practice, and










(iv)


failed to comply with procedural requirements which stem from the general principles of the EU law.




Therefore, the Commission failed to comply with the essential procedural requirements, interfered with legal certainty of the Applicant, and infringed the procedural rights of the parties to the formal investigation.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5107/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)