Action brought on 21 August 2015 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-478/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: R.Radu, A. Buzoianu and E. Gane, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission decision adopted by letter BUDG/B/3/MV D(2015) 2453089 of 11 June 2015 ordering Romania to make available to the EU budget the gross amount of EUR 1 079 513.03 as own resources;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested decision.

EU legislation contains no provision conferring on the Commission the power to require a Member State to pay a sum of money corresponding to a loss of EU own resources which occurred following the remission of customs duties decided by another Member State which was responsible for the assessment and collection of customs duties and their payment to the EU budget as traditional own resources.

Second plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated in the decision are insufficient and inadequate

The reasons stated in the contested decision are not sufficient or adequate, as required under Article 296 TFEU, since, first, the contested decision does not include the legal basis for its adoption and that basis cannot be inferred from the other elements of the letter and, secondly, the Commission did not set out, in the contested decision, the legal reasoning which led it to require Romania to make payment.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to exercise its powers correctly

In the event that the Court finds that the EU institution acted within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties, Romania considers that that institution exercised its powers incorrectly and infringed the principle of good administration and Romania’s rights of the defence.

The Commission infringed its obligations in respect of due care and good administration, since it did not carefully examine all the relevant information available to it and did not request additional necessary information before adopting the contested decision. The Commission did not establish a direct causal link between the acts imputed to Romania and the loss of EU own resources. Nor did the Commission justify the sum required from Romania by reference to the amount of customs duty corresponding to the value of the transit operation in question but based it on the value remitted by Germany.

The Commission’s actions were unforeseeable and did not allow Romania to exercise its rights of the defence.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations

The legal rules on the basis of which the Commission imposed the obligation to make payment were not identified or specified in the decision in question. Nor was their application foreseeable for Romania. Prior to receiving the Commission’s letter, Romania could not foresee or be aware of the obligation to make available to that institution the sum of money requested, corresponding to the loss of EU traditional own resources. By the same token, Romania considers that, by adopting the contested decision and requiring Romania to make payment, five years after the events in question took place and in spite of the conclusions reached by the Commission in the dialogue which took place with the Romanian authorities during that period, the Commission breached Romania’s legitimate expectations that it would not be required to pay the customs duties relating to the transit operations in question.

____________