Orders nº T-350/20 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, December 17, 2020

• Resolution Date: December 17, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-350/20

(Action for failure to act - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Combating fraud - Meetings of the College of European Commissioners and its President with the representative of the Czech Republic - Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 - Financial regulation - Direct payments from the EU budget in favour of farmers - Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic - Alleged failure to act by the Commission - Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Definition of the Commission’s position - Inadmissibility)

In Case T-350/20,

Lukáš Wagenknecht, residing in Pardubice (Czech Republic), represented by A. Koller, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by F. Erlbacher and M. Salyková, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request to adopt, by virtue of Article 325(1) and Article 319(3) TFEU and of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1), binding and dissuasive measures designed to prevent or deal with the alleged conflict of interests of Mr Andrej Babiš, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, in particular, first, by preventing the Members of the College of Commissioners, particularly its President, from meeting Mr Babiš and discussing with him questions connected with the Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union for 2021-2027 and with the EU budget in general and, second, by adopting measures intended to put an end to the direct payments of agricultural aid from the EU budget in favour of certain companies over which Mr Babiš exercises control and of which he is the effective proprietor,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of J. Svenningsen (Rapporteur), President, C. Mac Eochaidh and J. Laitenberger, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Background to the dispute

1 By letter of 30 January 2020, the applicant, Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht, a member of the Senát Parlamentu České republiky (Senate of the Czech Republic), asked the European Commission to adopt binding and dissuasive measures designed to prevent or deal with the alleged conflict of interests of Mr Andrej Babiš, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, in particular, first, by preventing the Members of the College of Commissioners, particularly its President, from meeting the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr Babiš, and discussing with him questions connected with the Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union for 2021-2027 and with the EU budget in general and, second, by adopting measures intended to put an end to the direct payments of agricultural aid from the EU budget in favour of certain companies over which Mr Babiš exercises control and of which he is the effective proprietor (‘the call to act’), on the ground of an alleged conflict of interests of that representative of the Czech Republic, which arises from his personal and family interests in the Agrofert group and the Synbiol group, both active in particular in the agri-food sector.

2 In its reply of 25 March 2020, the Commission, while noting that the call to act addressed to it corresponded, to a large extent, to that already addressed to the European Council and which was the subject of the action for failure to act, pending before the General Court on that date, in Case T-715/19 Wagenknecht v European Council, explained that it had already taken the necessary and proportionate measures in order to protect the EU budget. The Commission referred, first, to the fact that no payments under the European Structural and Investment Funds had been made to the beneficiaries potentially affected by the alleged conflict of interest and, second, to the decision of 28 November 2019 suspending payments under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). In that context, the Commission stated that the latter decision had been challenged before the Court in Case T-76/20, Czech Republic v Commission. Thus, because of that case, pending at the time and having subsequently been removed from the Register of the General Court following its withdrawal by the applicant (order of 25 August 2020, Czech Republic v Commission, T-76/20, not published, EU:T:2020:379), the Commission had decided to refrain from making any further observations.

3 By email of 30 March 2020, the applicant again contacted the Commission, reiterating the questions which he had posed in the call to act, on the ground that, in his view, the Commission had not adopted a position on them in its reply of 25 March 2020. In the same email, the applicant posed additional questions, while acknowledging that those questions went beyond the scope of the call to act.

4 By letter of 23 April 2020, the Commission, taking note of the applicant’s email of 30 March 2020, replied that it had nothing to add to the previous correspondence.

Procedure and forms of order sought

5 By an application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 9 June 2020, the applicant then brought an action on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, seeking a declaration of failure to act by the Commission in that it had unlawfully failed to act in response to the call to act.

6 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on the same day and under the same conditions, the applicant made an application for expedited procedure under Article 151 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

7 On 25 June 2020, the Commission lodged its observations on the application for expedited procedure.

8 By decision of 9 July 2020, the Court rejected the application for expedited procedure.

9 On 11 August 2020...