Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TA0662

    Case T-662/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Direct payments — Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice — Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 — Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Misuse of power — Legal certainty — Non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)

    IO C 251, 11.7.2016, 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)

    11.7.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 251/24


    Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission

    (Case T-662/14) (1)

    ((Common Agricultural Policy - Direct payments - Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice - Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Misuse of power - Legal certainty - Non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))

    (2016/C 251/26)

    Language of the case: Hungarian

    Parties

    Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

    Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

    Re:

    Application for annulment of the part of the first sentence of Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1), which states the following: ‘by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous’.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Hungary to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


    Top