Appeal brought on 19 February 2016 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 3 December 2015 in Case T-367/13, Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-105/16 P)

(2016/C 136/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Republic of Poland requests the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 December 2015 in Case T-367/13, Republic of Poland v European Commission, in so far as that judgment rejected the first complaint relating to the requirement that at least 50 % of the financial assistance be used for restructuring measures, put forward in the context of the first plea in the action seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 2436) (OJ L 123 of 4.5.2013, p. 11) in so far as an extrapolated correction of 11 %, in the amounts of EUR 4 583 950,92 and EUR 39 583 726,30, was carried out in that decision in regard to the expenditure notified by the Republic of Poland for support of semi-subsistence farms, and to order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

In the judgment under appeal the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Republic of Poland seeking annulment of the Commission decision providing for financial corrections of EUR 8 292 783,94 and EUR 71 610 559,39 to be applied to the expenditure notified by the Republic of Poland in respect of support for semi-subsistence farms.

The Commission alleged that the Republic of Poland committed five breaches in regard to the release of funds for the support of semi-subsistence farms, including failure to comply with the requirement under Article 33b of Regulation No 1257/1999 (2) that the farmer must use at least 50 % of the support for restructuring measures. This breach formed the basis on which the Commission carried out an extrapolated correction, in the amount of 11 %, of the notified expenditure for the support for semi-subsistence farms, which corresponded to the percentage of applications in which, out of a random check of 100 application documents checked by the Commission, it transpired that there had not been compliance with the requirement that half of the financial assistance had to be used for restructuring.

In that context the Republic of Poland puts forward, as a ground challenging the judgment under appeal, the contention that there was a misinterpretation of Article 33b of Regulation No 1257/1999 consisting in the assumption that the granting of support for semi-subsistence farms presupposes that at least 50 % of the aid would be used for restructuring measures, even though such a requirement finds no support in the provisions of EU law.

The erroneous interpretation of the abovementioned provision, it argues, led to the assumption by the General Court that the Commission had correctly proceeded in the contested decision on the assumption that the Republic of Poland ought to have approved only the original applications for financial assistance in which the farmers seeking to benefit from the support had in particular undertaken to use at least 50 % of the aid for restructuring measures.

The complaint alleging failure to comply with the requirement that the farmer must use at least 50 % of the support for restructuring measures constitutes, according to the appellant, the basis for the extrapolated correction, in the amount of 11 %, of the notified expenditure for the support for semi-subsistence farms.

In the view of the Republic of Poland, the requirement that the farmer must use at least 50 % of the aid for restructuring measures does not follow from EU law. It submits that no provision of EU law in which the conditions for the granting of support for semi-subsistence farms are laid down in detail makes provision for the condition that at least 50 % of the assistance must be used for restructuring measures. Article 33b of Regulation No 1257/1999, it submits, does not provide for any such condition. Nor has such a requirement been set by the Commission in Regulation No 141/2004 (3) with implementing provisions for specific measures for rural development provided for in Chapter IXa of Regulation No 1257/1999.

The Polish authorities, it is argued, therefore did not infringe their monitoring obligations with regard to the abovementioned conditions for the granting of support in the context of the measure ‘Support for Semi-Subsistence Farms’. There is thus no justification for making a financial correction in regard to any such breach. Consequently, the General Court erred in dismissing the action for a declaration annulling Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU in so far as an extrapolated correction in the amount of 11 % of the expenditure notified by the Republic of Poland for the support for semi-subsistence farms had been carried out in that decision.

(1)  OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 141/2004 of 28 January 2004 laying down rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards the transitional rural development measures applicable to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 25).