Judgment of the General Court Ninth Chamber of 21 September 2022, France v Commission, T-475/21
| Date | 21 September 2022 |
| Year | 2022 |
19
had ac tual knowledge of the decision to terminate his contract. That appeal was lodged within the
time limit laid down for that purpose, namely within one month of the applicant having actual
knowledge of the decision to terminate his employment contract, whereas EUCAP Somalia has not
adduced evidence that it was lodged out of time.
Second, as regards the new exception, the Court, after holding that Belgian law was the national law
applicable to the case, and relying on the mandatory provisions of the Belgian substantive
employment law applicable to the employment contract, declares that the probationary period clause
contained in the contract, which is a fixed-term contract, is void. It therefore precludes its application
for the purpose of settling the dispute and applies a notice period of one month stipulated by the
same contract.
Moreover, still applying Belgian law, the Court holds that the notice c ontained in the first letter is void
because EUCAP Somalia sent that letter to an incomplete address. It acknowledges, however, that the
second letter was properly notified. Accordingly, it finds that the termination of the employment
contract between EUCAP Somalia and the applicant, stemming from that second letter, became
definitively effective on the expiry of a contractual notice period of one month, and it orders EUCAP
Somalia to pay the applicant the appropriate compensation.
3. AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 September 2022, France v
Commission, T-475/21
EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Expenditure incurred by France – Voluntary
coupled support – Eligibility conditions – Eligible sectors and productions – Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU)
No1307/2013
In 2016, the French authorities notified the European Commission of a coupled support measure for
the protein crops sector. The eligible areas for that support were those cultivated for fodder legumes
either alone, in mixtures with other fodder legumes or in mixtures with other varieties, such as
grasses, where legumes were predominant.
On the basis of an inquiry which it initiated, the Commission found that the conditions of eligibility for
that support did not comply with EU law. In its view, as grasses were not listed among the eligible
39
mixtures of legumes and
grasses could not be granted coupled support. Thus, by its Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988
40
(‘the contested decision’), the Commission excluded from European Union financing an amount of
EUR 45 869 990.19 corresponding to expenditure incurred by the French Republic in respect of
voluntary coupled support for the production of fodder legumes relating to claim year 2017.
After proceedings were brought by the French Republic, the General Court dismisses the action for
annulment brought against the contested decision. In that connection, it interprets for the first time
39
Regulation (EU) No1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to
farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No637/2008
40
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred
by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2021 L 218, p. 9).
To continue reading
Request your trial