Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62022TN0062

Case T-62/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Estonia v Commission

OJ C 148, 4.4.2022, p. 32–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 148, 4.4.2022, p. 24–25 (GA)

4.4.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/32

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-62/22)

(2022/C 148/43)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicants: Republic of Estonia (represented by: M. Kriisa)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the European Commission’s Implementing Decision of 17 November 2021, in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 634 057,30;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

1.

First plea in law — the applicant submits that the European Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 21 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014, (1) read in conjunction with Article 30 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, (2) and thus came to the incorrect conclusion that the system for the submission of aid applications in Estonia does not comply with those provisions.

2.

Second plea in law — according to the applicant, the European Commission interpreted Article 30(2) of Regulation No 640/2014 in an arbitrary manner and, consequently, applied it incorrectly.

3.

Third plea in law — the applicant submits that the European Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons and the principle of good administration, since it was not able to provide sufficiently clear reasons why the animal replacement as authorised in Estonia does not comply with EU law.

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

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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).

Top