Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-585/14)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, State Attorney)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the

wn resources for the EU budget, because sugar was imported outside the system of tariff import quotas and that the resources for that importation were not determined and in which, second, the applicant is ordered to make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources amounting, in the event that the import licence was used to its fullest extent, to EUR 1 257 000; order the Commission to pay the costs.Pleas in law and main argumentsIn support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law. First plea: manifest error of assessmentThe Commission wrongly found, in the contested decision contained in the

letter, that the loss of traditional o

wn resources is due to the mista

kes made by the importer in its application for the issue of an import l

icence and that the Slovenian authorities

did not discover those mistakes in time. The importer did indeed complete and correct its application in time and the errors occurred, in fact, in the recording of the data when the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Agricultural Market and Rural Development transmitted the applications f

or the issue of an import licence in the Commission’s AMIS-Quota application, which was entirely the result of serious defects in the AMIS-Quota system.Second plea: breach of the rules concerning the Commission’s decision-making procedures The letter containing the contested decision was signed by the Director of the Directorate General for Budget, even though it is the Commission, acting as a collegial

body, which is competent to decide on the applicant’s financial responsibility for the lo

ss of the EU’s traditional own resources. Third plea: inadequate statement of reasons and incorrect legal basisThe Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision in respect of the applicant’s financial responsibility with the result that it is not possible

to check if it is correct and consistent with substantive law, thereby

breaching Article 296 TFEU and the Commission’s internal procedural rules. The Commission, moreover, did not provide an adequate legal basis to justify its decision that there was, in this case, a loss of traditional own resources and that the applicant would be financially responsible for such a loss.Fourth plea: infringement o

f the rights of defence and the right to be heardThe Commission did not inform the applicant, prior to the adoption of the contested decision, of all the elements of fact and law on which its decision is based, thereby infringin

g the principles of the rights of defence and the right to be heard. Fifth p

lea: the Commission’s failure of inspection The applicant’s error in the communication concerning the application for issue of an import licence is a consequence of defects in the AMIS-quota electronic information system, which the Commission creat

ed and manages; accordingly the applicant is not res

ponsible for the error made.Sixth plea: infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the avoidance of unjust enrichmentThe applicant contends that, in view of the fact that no loss of traditional own resources was proven, the imposition of financial respons

ibility for an error when encoding the data in the Commission’s defective computer system means that the EU will be un

justly enriched. Moreover, the principle of legal certainty was infringed because there is no procedure for correcting mistakes for situations in which unjust enrichment may occur. The applicant further argues that the legislation under which it is not possible to correct

administrative errors committed in the context of a procedure for issuing import licences even though no market operator suffers a loss as a result of the error bei

ng corrected — and which results in the Member State becoming as a matter of course financially responsible — is also contrary to the principle of proportionality. The Commission, by failing to bring to a close, within a reasonable period, the procedure for determining the applicant’s financial responsibility, also infringed the principle of legitimate expectations.