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 62014TN0784

Case T-784/14: Action brought on 28 November 2014  — Romania v Commission

OJ C 65, 23.2.2015, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/36

Action brought on 28 November 2014 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-784/14)

(2015/C 065/51)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: R. Radu, R. Haţieganu and A. Buzoianu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission’s decision, adopted by letter BUDG/B3/MV D(2014) 3 079 038 of 19 September 2014, in which the Commission asks Romania to make available to the EU budget the gross amount of EUR 14  883,79, corresponding to losses of traditional own resources;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested decision

—

There is no provision of EU legislation which confers on the Commission the power to compel a Member State to pay a sum of money corresponding to a loss of EU traditional own resources which occurred following the remission of customs duties decided by another Member State which was responsible for the valuation, collection and payment of those duties, as traditional own resources, to the EU budget.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contained an inadequate and insufficient statement of reasons

—

The contested decision does not contain a sufficient and adequate statement of reasons as required under Article 296 TFEU. First, the contested decision does not state the legal basis for its adoption; nor can that basis be inferred from the other elements of the Commission’s letter. Second, the Commission did not set out, in the contested decision, the legal reasoning which led to Romania being obliged to pay compensation for damage resulting from a loss of EU traditional own resources owing to the remission of certain customs debts notified by another Member State.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging — in the event that the Court finds that the Commission acted within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties — that the Commission failed to observe the principle of sound administration and breached Romania’s rights of the defence

—

The Commission breached its duty to exercise due diligence and the duty of sound administration in so far as it did not carefully examine all the relevant information available to it and ask for other necessary information before adopting the contested decision. The Commission did not establish a direct causal link between the acts imputed to Romania and the loss of EU traditional own resources. Nor did the Commission justify the sum asked of Romania by reference to the amount of customs duty corresponding to the value of the transit in question, on the sufficient basis of the value remitted by the Federal Republic of Germany.

—

The Commission’s actions were unforeseeable and did not allow Romania to exercise its rights of the defence.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations

—

The legal rules on the basis of which the Commission, through the contested decision, imposed the obligation to make payment were not identified or specified in that decision. Nor was their application foreseeable for Romania. It was not possible for the Romanian State to foresee or to be aware, prior to receiving the Commission’s letter, of the obligation to make available to that institution the sum of money requested, corresponding to the loss of EU traditional own resources. By the same token, by adopting the contested decision and obliging Romania to make payment, four years after the occurrence of the events in question and in spite of the conclusions reached by the Commission in the dialogue between that institution and the Romanian authorities during that four-year period, the Commission breached Romania’s legitimate expectations that there would be no financial obligations regarding the payment of the customs debts in question and, accordingly, no obligations in respect of the EU budget.
Top