EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022TN0314

Case T-314/22: Action brought on 25 May 2022 — Poland v Commission

OJ C 276, 18.7.2022, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.7.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/19


Action brought on 25 May 2022 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-314/22)

(2022/C 276/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Commission contained in the letter of 16 May 2022, relating to the offsetting of the amounts receivable by way of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 20 September 2021 (Czech Republic v Poland, C-121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752) with regard to the period from 18 January 2022 to 3 February 2022;

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, as a result of the application of the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable by offsetting, despite the fact that those amounts had ceased to exist. The applicant submits that the Commission had no legal basis on which to adopt the contested decision given that, as a result of the settlement agreement concluded between the Polish and Czech Governments, the waiver by both parties of any claims, and the removal of Case C-121/21 (2) from the register of the Court of Justice, the effects of the order of 20 September 2021 had retroactively ceased to exist.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, as well as of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a result of an insufficient statement of reasons in the contested decisions. The applicant submits that, in adopting the contested decisions, the Commission failed to provide a statement of reasons, as required by the Treaty and the case-law of the Court of Justice, with regard to the legal basis for the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable conducted by means of that decision.


(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

(2)  Order of 4 February 2022, Czech Republic v Poland (Turów mine), C-121/21, not published, EU:C:2022:82.


Top