Appeal brought on 22 September 2023 by Hungary against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 12 July 2023 in Case T-491/21, Hungary v Commission

(Case C-587/23 P)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2023 in Case T-491/21.

annul, in part, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), ¹ in so far as it concerns Hungary, which excludes, due to failure to carry out a key control, the amount of EUR 1 887 692.57 from EU financing under EAFRD 'Rural development EAFRD – forestry measures' for the financial years 2016 to 2019.

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In its appeal, the Hungarian Government contests the scope of the prohibition of double funding laid down in Article 30 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. According to that government, the judgment of the General Court errs in finding that the prohibition must apply in so far as the same beneficiary may receive, in respect of the same parcel, other funding from the EU budget for the same purpose, irrespective of whether the funding in question is compensatory or incentive. Therefore, in fact, the prohibition only concerns situations where the two types of aid cover the same costs. The costs covered by a given aid are identified on the basis of the objective of the aid set out in the wording of the regulation, the conditions for granting it and the provisions relating to the calculation of the amount of aid.

According to the Hungarian Government, the General Court's judgment seeks to extend, by invoking the protection of the financial interests of the EU budget and the principle of sound financial management, the prohibition of double funding also to those cases (possible overlapping of aid for afforestation and greening) where, having regard to the intention of the EU legislature as reflected in the wording of the regulation, this is not to be expected.

____________

¹ OJ 2021 L 218, p. 9.