Action brought on 3 October 2013 – Lithuania v Commission
(Case T-533/13)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Parties
Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and A. Karbauskas)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
annul Article 1(4) of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 4487 final of 19 July 2013 authorising the grant in Lithuania of transitional national aid for 2013 (‘the contested decision’);
order the European 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, relating to infringement of Article 39 TFEU, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU, and of the principle of non-discrimination
In adopting Article 1(4) of the contested decision the Commission committed an infringement of Article 39 TFEU, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU, because it did not keep to the objectives of the common agricultural policy that are specified in the FEU Treaty (in particular Article 39(1)(b) TFEU) and to the criteria of the common agricultural policy, and it also infringed the principle of non-discrimination.
Second plea in law, relating to infringement of Regulation No 73/2009
The Commission, in adopting Article 1(4) of the contested decision without a legal basis, infringed Regulation No 73/2009, 1 having applied Article 10a(4) of that regulation incorrectly.
Third plea in law, relating to an error of assessment by the Commission
In adopting Article 1(4) of the contested decision the Commission committed an error of assessment, because it assessed the levels of the direct payments of the old and the new Member States erroneously in 2012 and it based the calculation of the transitional national aid granted on an erroneous assessment of that kind.
4. Fourth plea in law, relating to infringement of the principle of good administration
In adopting Article 1(4) of the contested decision the Commission infringed the principle of good administration, because it did not comply with the duty to take as a basis the new information provided by the Republic of Lithuania concerning the levels of direct payments in the Member States and did not assess the actual importance of direct payments for Lithuanian farms.
____________1 Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16, corrigendum at OJ 2010 L 43, p. 7).