Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62016TN0682

    Case T-682/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — France v Commission

    OJ C 441, 28.11.2016, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.11.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 441/24

    Action brought on 23 September 2016 — France v Commission

    (Case T-682/16)

    (2016/C 441/28)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016, notified on 13 July 2016, suspending monthly payments to France under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF);

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549). This plea has two limbs.

    —

    First limb: the French authorities implemented in full the action plan including clear progress indicators established following consultation with the Commission to which the contested decision refers.

    —

    Second limb: the contested decision is based on factors which were not envisaged in the action plan.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.
    Top