CELEX: 62014TA0662
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-662/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Direct payments — Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice — Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 — Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Misuse of power — Legal certainty — Non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)

11.7.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 251/24
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-662/14) (1)
   
   ((Common Agricultural Policy - Direct payments - Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice - Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Misuse of power - Legal certainty - Non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 251/26)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Application for annulment of the part of the first sentence of Article 45(8) of 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), which states the following: ‘by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous’.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.