—

According to the applicant, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450) that Commission Decision 2006/776 was contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession even from the time of its adoption, and the Commission should have amended it. Since, in the contested decision, the Commission declined to amend Decision 2006/776, the contested decision too is contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession.

—

According to the applicant, the Commission is under an obligation, pursuant to the principle of good administration, to apply legal acts in accordance with the interpretations given by the Court of Justice. Since the Commission did not bring Decision 2006/776 into harmony with EU law, deriving from the judgments of the General Court in Czech Republic v Commission (T-248/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:170) and Lithuania v Commission (T-262/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:171) and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450), it thus infringed the principle of good administration.

—

According to the applicant, the contested decision and Decision 2006/776 are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since Estonia cannot rely against individuals on Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (3) and its obligations under those decisions are confined to payment into the EU budget and do not make it possible to attain the objectives of the system of eliminating surplus stocks of sugar.

—

The applicant claims that the decision whether to amend Commission Decision 2006/776 should have been adopted by the college of commissioners. It is a decision of principle whose adoption may not be delegated.