CJEU Case C-457/24 / Judgment
Χάρτης των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
-
CJEU Case C-457/24 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
Appeal – Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2020 – Expenditure excluded from European Union financing – Expenditure incurred by Romania – Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 – Article 52 – Conformity clearance procedure – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 – Article 34 – Change in the legal basis of the European Commission’s proposals for financial corrections – Possibility for the Member State concerned to make its views on those proposals known in a meaningful way – Concept of ‘external factor’ – Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Article 44 – Diversification requirements – Confusion between set-aside land and temporary grassland – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 – Article 35 – Increase in the control rate – Concept of ‘significant non-compliance’
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby:
- Dismisses the appeal;
- Orders Romania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
141. In the fourth part of the first ground of appeal, Romania considers that the General Court restricted its right to effective judicial review, in breach of Article 47 of the Charter. The three errors of law identified in the first three parts of that ground have the effect of limiting the possibility for that Member State to raise effectively before the Commission, and subsequently before the General Court, essential aspects relating to the existence of an infringement of EU law, which is a prerequisite for the imposition of financial corrections.
142. The Commission submits that the fourth part of the first ground of appeal must be declared inadmissible on the grounds of lack of clarity. Romania has not sufficiently explained how the Commission or the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter. In any event, that part must, according to the Commission, be rejected as unfounded.
143. As regards the Commission’s objection that Romania’s arguments based on the infringement of Article 47 of the Charter are inadmissible on the grounds that they are unclear, it should be noted at the outset that it is clear from the appeal that those arguments, raised by Romania in the fourth part of the first ground, constitute, in its view, the consequence of the alleged errors identified by Romania in the first three parts of that ground.
...
145. That being so, in so far as Romania considers that the infringement of Article 47 of the Charter referred to in that plea results from the alleged errors identified by it in the first three parts of that ground of appeal, it suffices to note that it is apparent from paragraphs 93 to 109, 120 to 126 and 135 to 140 of the present judgment that the examination of those first three parts did not reveal any error of law in the assessment made by the General Court.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)