Case C-457/24 P: Appeal brought on 26 June 2024 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 17 April 2024 in Case T-49/22 Romania v Commission
Date: 2024-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, judicial review, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_202404850EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4850


12.8.2024






Appeal brought on 26 June 2024 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 17 April 2024 in Case T-49/22 Romania v Commission


(Case C-457/24 P)

(C/2024/4850)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Appellant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, M. Chicu, R. Antoine, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Romania claims that the Court should:






—


allow the appeal, set aside in full the judgment of the General Court in Case T-49/22 and, rehearing the dispute, uphold the application for partial annulment of Decision 2021/2020 (1) submitted by the Romanian State,




or
allow the appeal, set aside in full the judgment of the General Court in Case T-49/22 and refer the case back to the General Court to adjudicate afresh so that, in those proceedings, the application for partial annulment of Decision 2021/2020, submitted by the Romanian State, is upheld;






—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, Romania puts forward four grounds.






A.


Infringement of Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, (2) in conjunction with Article 34 of Regulation No 908/2014 (3) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Romania submits that the General Court erred in law when:






—


it established that the legal basis of the Commission’s statements could be changed in the course of the conformity clearance procedure, even in the context of a bilateral meeting;










—


it held that Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, in conjunction with Article 34 of Regulation No 908/2014, applies not only to the communication of information concerning the calculation of the financial correction, but also to the communication of information concerning the non-existence of an infringement of EU law;










—


it held that the conduct of the Commission, consisting in the partial overlap of two inquiries and in the late clarification in the first inquiry of a number elements relevant to the second, cannot constitute an ‘external factor’ vis-à-vis that second inquiry, within the meaning of Article 34(6)(b) of Regulation No 908/2014.




In committing those errors of law, the General Court limited Romania’s right to effective judicial review.










B.


Infringement of Article 52 of Regulation No 306/2013, in conjunction with Article 44(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1307/2013 (4) and the principle of proportionality, as regards the deficiency concerning the definition of the land lying fallow in relation to grazing land, in the case of arable land covering between 10 and 30 hectares.
Romania submits that the General Court distorted the statements of the Romanian authorities when it concluded that the latter had impliedly acknowledged that they were not in a position to ensure that there was no risk to the funds in relation to the arable land of between 10 and 30 hectares.
Likewise, Romania submits that the General Court also erred in law when:






—


it rejected, referring to Article 44(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1307/2013, the argument that, in the case of land of between 10 and 30 hectares, even if the land lying fallow is confused with temporary pasture, there is no risk to EU funds;










—


it declared that the confusion between land lying fallow and temporary pasture produced a cascade of consequences, calling into question the application of the greening thresholds based on crop diversification, in accordance with Article 44 of Regulation No 1307/2013;










—


it established, referring to Article 34(6) of Regulation No 908/2014, that the Commission was not under an obligation to take into consideration the information relating to the non-existence of an infringement of EU law in the case of land of between 10 and 30 hectares;










—


it concluded, referring to the principle of proportionality, that the application, for the years 2017 and 2018, of a flat-rate correction that was more than double that applied for the years 2015 and 2016 was justified.














C.


Infringement of Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the Commission Guidelines on the calculation of financial corrections, (5) in relation to the deficiency ‘updating of the LPIS – quality’. (6)

Romania submits that the General Court defined, in a contradictory manner, the deficiency ‘updating of the LPIS – quality’, erroneously declaring that the latter consisted:






—


in the failure to update the LPIS every 3 years, in the absence of a legal basis to that effect;










—


in the errors derived from the failure to update the LPIS, no errors of such a kind having been found on the occasion of the 2018 inquiry.














D.


Infringement of Articles 31, 34 and 35 of Regulation No 809/2014, (7) Articles 23 to 26 of Regulation No 640/2014 (8) and working document DS/CDP/2015/19, (9) in connection with the deficiency relating to the carrying out of a sufficient number of on-the-spot checks in respect of the greening payment scheme.
Romania submits that the General Court erred in finding that areas not eligible in terms of SAPS (10) had to be taken into account in calculating the total reduction for greening per hectare, with a view to increasing the rate of on-the-spot checks. In that context, the General Court wrongly equiparated areas not eligible in terms of SAPS to a case of reduction of payments for greening.






(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2020 of 17 November 2021 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 2021 L 413, p. 10).

(2)  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).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 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).

(4)  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).

(5)  Commission communication C(2015) 3675 final of 8 June 2015, entitled ‘Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections in the framework of the conformity and financial clearance of accounts procedures’.

(6)  Land Parcel Identification System (‘LPIS’).

(7)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).

(8)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 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).

(9)  Commission Working Document DS/CDP/2015/19, concerning the increase in the percentage of beneficiaries who will be checked in the context of greening measures when significant irregularities are found.

(10)  Single area payment scheme.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4850/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)