CELEX: 62010CN0111
Language: en
Date: 2010-03-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-111/10: Action brought on 1 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

1.5.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 113/32
            
         Action brought on 1 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-111/10)
   2010/C 113/50
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, B. Stromsky, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of State-owned agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The Council, by adopting the contested decision, has overturned the Commission's decision resulting from the proposal for appropriate measures in Point 196 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007-2013 (2) (hereafter the ‘2007 Agricultural Guidelines’) and from its unconditional acceptance by Lithuania, obliging the latter to bring to an end an existing aid scheme for the purchase of State-owned agricultural land by 31 December 2009 at the latest. Under the guise of exceptional circumstances, the Council has in fact allowed Lithuania to maintain that scheme until the expiry of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines on 31 December 2013. The circumstances put forward by the Council as the grounds for its decision are self evidently not exceptional circumstances of such a nature as to justify the decision taken and make no allowance for the Commission's decision on that scheme.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In support of its action for annulment, the Commission raises four pleas in law:
               
                            
                        
                        
                           In the first place, it considers that the Council was not competent to act under the third subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU because the aid which it approved was existing aid which Lithuania had committed to eliminating by the end of 2009 when it accepted the appropriate measures proposed to it by the Commission.
                        
                     
                            
                        
                        
                           Secondly, it maintains that the Council has misused its powers, seeking to neutralise the determination that aid measures which Lithuania was free to retain until the end of 2009, but not after that date, could be kept in place until 2013.
                        
                     
                            
                        
                        
                           Thirdly, the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation which applies to Member States and also between institutions. By its decision, the Council has released Lithuania from its obligation of cooperation with the Commission in relation to the appropriate measures accepted by that Member State regarding existing aid for purchase of State-owned agricultural land in the context of the cooperation established by Article 108(1) TFEU.
                        
                     
                            
                        
                        
                           Finally, the Commission maintains that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment insofar it found that exceptional circumstances existed which justify the adoption of the approved measure. The Commission submits that, to the extent that any exceptional circumstances did exist, the contested decision approves aid which either is incapable of addressing those exceptional circumstances or goes beyond what would be needed to resolve them, in violation of the principle of proportionality.
                        
                     
         
      (1)  2009/983/EU, OJ L 338, p. 93
   
      (2)  OJ 2006 C 319, p. 1