Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-37/20 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, March 06, 2020

• Resolution Date: March 06, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-37/20

Action brought on 22 January 2020 - United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-37/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: Z. Lavery, Agent and T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1835, ¹ in so far as it excludes from European Union Financing certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of Active Farmer - connected companies; and

order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging error in the interpretation of Article 9(2)(A) of the Regulation 1307/2013 ² .

The United Kingdom contends seven arguments in support of this plea:

First of all, the Commission erred in its interpretation of the language of Article 9(2)(A). It does not preclude payment to a claimant merely because the claimant is part of a larger group of companies, some other member of which group undertakes activities on the negative list.

Secondly, the applicant argues the language of that provision is not capable of having the meaning ascribed to it by the Commission. As a matter of syntax, it is clear that what is prohibited is that the group should itself operate the activity in question. This condition is not met where the claimant for the direct payment is a company which (in and of itself) meets the definition of farmer in Article 4(1)(a), but which does not (in and of itself) operate a relevant activity.

Thirdly, the United Kingdom’s interpretation is reinforced by the fact the wording in Article 9(2)(A) mirrors that in Article 4(1)(a) defining the notion of “farmer”. A “farmer” may comprise either (a) a single (natural or legal) person who exercises an agricultural activity, or (b) a group of such persons. In the latter case, the single “farmer” within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) will be comprised in a collective of natural or legal persons. The phrase should not be read as introducing a “connected entities” element in Article 4(1)(a), therefore such meaning should not be given to Article 9(2)(a).

Fourthly, the phrase “groups of...