Contents
Judgment OF The General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)29 May 2024note(Environment — Lignite mining activities at an open-cast mine — Turów lignite mine (Poland) — Law governing the institutions — Failure to comply with an order of the Court of Justice imposing interim measures — Periodic penalty payment — Recovery of debts by offsetting — Article 101(1) and Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 — Removal of the case in the main proceedings from the register — No retroactive effect on the interim measures ordered — Obligation to state reasons)In Cases T‑200/22 and T‑314/22,Republic of Poland, represented by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent,vEuropean Commission, represented by J. Estrada de Solà, O. Verheecke and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents,THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),composed of A. Marcoulli, President, V. Tomljenović, R. Norkus, W. Valasidis (Rapporteur) and L. Spangsberg Grønfeldt, Judges,Registrar: V. Di Bucci,having regard to the written part of the procedure,having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,gives the following
Judgment
1By its actions under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Poland seeks the annulment, in Case T‑200/22, of the decisions of the European Commission of 7 and 8 February 2022 and 16 and 31 March 2022 and, in Case T‑314/22, of the Commission’s decision of 16 May 2022 (together, ‘the contested decisions’), by which the Commission recovered, by way of offsetting, the amounts payable by the Republic of Poland in respect of the daily penalty payment ordered by the Vice-President of the Court in her order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), for the periods between, first, 20 September 2021 and 17 January 2022 and, secondly, 18 January 2022 and 3 February 2022.
Background to the dispute
Proceedings before the Court of Justice
2On 26 February 2021, the Czech Republic brought an action under Article 259 TFEU for a declaration that the Republic of Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law as a result of the extension and continuation of lignite mining activities at the open-cast mine in Turów (Poland), located close to the borders of the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C‑121/21).
3At the same time, the Czech Republic brought an application for interim measures seeking an order, pending the judgment of the Court of Justice in the main action, that the Republic of Poland immediately cease lignite mining activities at the Turów mine.
4By order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), the Vice-President of the Court granted that application and ordered the Republic of Poland to cease, immediately and pending delivery of the judgment closing the proceedings in Case C‑121/21, mining activities at that mine.
5Taking the view that the Republic of Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), the Czech Republic brought, on 7 June 2021, a fresh application for interim measures asking the Court to order the Republic of Poland to pay a daily penalty payment of EUR 5 000 000 to the EU budget.
6By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 29 June 2021, the Republic of Poland requested that the order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), be cancelled, pursuant to Article 163 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.
7By order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), the Vice-President of the Court dismissed the Republic of Poland’s application seeking cancellation of the order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), and ordered the Republic of Poland to pay the Commission a penalty of EUR 500 000 per day, from the date of notification of that order to the Republic of Poland until that Member State complies with the order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420).
The procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decisions
8By letter of 19 October 2021, the Commission asked the Polish authorities to provide evidence that lignite mining activities at the Turów mine had ceased. In the same letter, the Commission stated that, in the event of failure to provide that evidence, it would issue, from 3 November 2021 and at the end of each period of 30 calendar days, payment requests pursuant to the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752).
9By various letters issued between 5 November 2021 and 8 March 2022, the Commission requested that the Republic of Poland pay the various amounts payable by way of daily penalty payments.
10The Commission subsequently issued the Republic of Poland with formal notice to pay those amounts together with default interest and informed it that, if payment was not made, it would recover the amounts by means of offsetting, in accordance with Article 101(1) and Article 102 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; ‘the Financial Regulation’).
11By the contested decisions, the Commission informed Poland that it was offsetting its debt against various amounts owed to Poland by the European Union. The principal sum thus recovered by means of offsetting amounts to EUR 68500000 and corresponds to the daily penalty payments payable for the period from 20 September 2021 to 3 February 2022.
Settlement agreement and removal of Case C‑121/21 from the register
12On 3 February 2022, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland concluded an agreement to end the dispute that gave rise to Case C‑121/21 (‘the settlement agreement’).
13On 4 February 2022, the two Member States informed the Court that they were withdrawing all claims in Case C‑121/21 following the settlement agreement reached. On the same day, the Polish authorities asked the Commission to discontinue the procedure for enforcement of the periodic penalty payments ordered by the Court, enclosing with their request the text of the settlement agreement.
15On the same day, the Republic of Poland lodged an application, pursuant to Article 163 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, for cancellation of the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752).
16On 11 February 2022, the Polish authorities again requested the Commission to discontinue the procedure for enforcement of the periodic penalty payments and to withdraw the first and second contested decisions on account of the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the Court’s register.
17In response to the letters of 4 and 11 February 2022, the Commission informed the Polish authorities on 22 February 2022 that, as long as the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), had not been ‘set aside’, it intended to continue to recover the amounts payable up to 3 February 2022 by offsetting.
Forms of order sought
19The Republic of Poland claims that the General Court should:– annul the contested decisions;– order the Commission to pay the costs.
20The Commission contends, in essence, that the General Court should:– dismiss the actions;– order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Law
21After hearing the parties on the issue, the General Court has decided to join the present cases for the purposes of the judgment, in accordance with Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
22In support of its actions for annulment, the Republic of Poland raises two pleas in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 101(1) and Article 102 of the Financial Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 98 of that regulation, and, secondly, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of the Financial Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 98 of that regulation
23The Republic of Poland argues that, by adopting the contested decisions, the Commission exceeded its powers under Articles 101 and 102 of the Financial Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 98 of that regulation.
24In particular, the Republic of Poland claims that the conclusion of the settlement agreement and the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the register have led to the retroactive cessation of the effects of the interim measures ordered in that case. It submits that that interpretation is supported by the Court’s case-law, according to which the annulment of a measure by the EU judicature has ex tunc effects and therefore has the consequence of retroactively eliminating the annulled measure from the legal system. According to the Republic of Poland, that interpretation is supported by the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. It adds that continuing to enforce the interim measures, despite the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the register, goes beyond the objective pursued by those measures.
25In addition, the Republic of Poland submits that, since the interim measure imposed in the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), has lapsed, the amounts set out in the payment requests do not constitute an existing debt within the meaning of Article 98(1)(a) of the Financial Regulation. The Commission should therefore have cancelled the debts established and refrained from recovering them.
26The Republic of Poland submits that, if the Commission was obliged to continue the recovery procedure, despite the conclusion of the settlement agreement and the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the Court’s register, that would discourage parties from reaching an amicable resolution of their disputes. The debtor State would have to bear both the effects of the settlement agreement and the costs associated with the recovery of the debt corresponding to the periodic penalty payments ordered.
27Lastly, the Republic of Poland claims that Article 101(6) of the Financial Regulation could be interpreted as meaning that the authorising officer responsible may cancel an established amount receivable taking into account circumstances arising between the establishment of the amount receivable and the adoption of the decision to recover the amounts payable.
28The Commission disputes the Republic of Poland’s arguments.
Preliminary observations
29It should be pointed out that the Republic of Poland is seeking a declaration that, because Case C‑121/21 was removed from the register on 4 February 2022, the financial consequences of the interim measures ordered in that case have retroactively ceased. That has the result, it is submitted, of rendering the debt non-existent and, consequently, rendering recovery under Articles 101 and 102 of the Financial Regulation unlawful.
30Before examining the merits of the Republic of Poland’s arguments, it is necessary to set out some considerations relating to, first, the nature and purpose of periodic penalty payments attached to interim measures and, secondly, the scope of proceedings for interim measures in the light of Article 279 TFEU.
–The nature and purpose of periodic penalty payments ordered under Article 279 TFEU
31Article 279 TFEU confers on the Court of Justice the power to prescribe any interim measures that it deems necessary in order to ensure that the final decision is fully effective (orders of 20 November 2017, Commission v Poland, C‑441/17 R, EU:C:2017:877, paragraph 97, and of 27 October 2021, Commission v Poland, C‑204/21 R, EU:C:2021:878, paragraph 19). In particular, the court hearing an application for interim measures must be able to ensure the effectiveness of an order directed at a party pursuant to Article 279 TFEU, by adopting any measure intended to ensure that the obligations laid down in the interim order is complied with by that party. Such a measure may entail, inter alia, provision for a periodic penalty payment to be imposed should that order not be complied with (see, to that effect, order of 27 October 2021, Commission v Poland, C‑204/21 R, EU:C:2021:878, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
32Furthermore, the purpose of imposing a periodic penalty payment to ensure compliance with the interim measures adopted by the court hearing the application for interim measures is to guarantee the effective application of EU law, such application being an essential component of the rule of law, a value enshrined in Article 2 TEU and on which the European Union is founded (see, to that effect, order of 20 November 2017, Commission v Poland, C‑441/17 R, EU:C:2017:877, paragraph 102).
33It follows that a periodic penalty payment imposed as ancillary to interim measures cannot be regarded as a penalty, but as an instrument of a coercive nature, which the two parties to the present dispute have expressly acknowledged.
34Thus, in the present case, it was in order to ‘deter [the Republic of Poland] from delaying its compliance with [the] order’ of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), that a periodic penalty payment was imposed by the Vice-President of the Court.
–The scope of proceedings for interim measures in the light of Article 279 TFEU
35In accordance with Article 162(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, an interim measure will lapse on the date specified in the order granting it or, where no such date is fixed, when the judgment which closes the proceedings is delivered.
36Since, as is clear from Article 160(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, proceedings for interim measures are ancillary to the main proceedings, interim measures adopted in proceedings for interim relief will lapse when the main proceedings are closed, in particular where the case in the main proceedings has been the subject of an order for removal from the register (see, to that effect, order of 19 May 2022, Czech Republic v Poland (Turów mine), C‑121/21 R, not published, EU:C:2022:408, paragraph 25).
37Thus, in view of the ancillary nature of the proceedings for interim measures in relation to the main proceedings, the orders of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), and of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), lapsed with effect from 4 February 2022. Moreover, the order of 19 May 2022, Czech Republic v Poland (Turów mine) (C‑121/21 R, not published, EU:C:2022:408, paragraph 26), expressly states that, from 4 February 2022, the date of the order removing Case C‑121/21 from the Court’s register, the Republic of Poland is no longer required immediately to cease lignite mining activities at the Turów mine. Since that interim measure is no longer applicable, an order requiring that Member State to pay the Commission a penalty of EUR 500 000 per day until those activities are ceased must be regarded as having lapsed with effect from that date.
38It is in the light of those considerations that the Republic of Poland’s arguments are to be examined.
The consequences of removing the case in the main proceedings from the register with regard to the existence of the Republic of Poland’s debt
39The contested decisions are decisions to offset the amounts payable by the Republic of Poland pursuant to the daily penalty payment imposed by the Vice-President of the Court in her order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), for the period between 20 September 2021 and 3 February 2022. In particular, the Commission stated that, as long as that order had not been ‘set aside’, it was obliged to enforce it for the period from 20 September 2021 to 3 February 2022 inclusive.
40In that regard, it should be noted that, first, the order of 4 February 2022, Czech Republic v Poland (Turów mine) (C‑121/21, not published, EU:C:2022:82), makes no mention of the interim measures prescribed by the order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), or of the daily penalty payment imposed under Article 279 TFEU. Secondly, the Republic of Poland’s application for cancellation of the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), was dismissed. Thirdly, it is expressly stated in paragraph 26 of the order of 19 May 2022, Czech Republic v Poland (Turów mine) (C‑121/21 R, not published, EU:C:2022:408), that the order that the Republic of Poland pay to the Commission a penalty of EUR 500000 per day until the cessation of those activities must be regarded as having lapsed with effect from 4 February 2022. In other words, the daily penalty payment imposed by the Vice-President of the Court in her order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), ceased to produce its effects from 4 February 2022.
42It follows that, although removing the case in the main proceedings from the register had an impact on the period during which the periodic penalty was payable, this did not, contrary to the Republic of Poland’s submission, have the effect of extinguishing the Republic of Poland’s obligation to settle the amount payable in respect of the periodic penalty payment. To reach a different conclusion would be to deviate from the purpose of the periodic penalty payment, which is to guarantee the effective application of EU law, such application being an essential component of the rule of law, a value enshrined in Article 2 TEU (see paragraph 32 above).
43None of the arguments put forward by the Republic of Poland is capable of calling that conclusion into question.
44In the first place, as regards the application by analogy of the case-law relating to the effects of the annulment of a measure by the EU judicature, cited in paragraph 24 above, it is clear that it is not applicable in the present case, since the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), is not open to appeal and cannot therefore be set aside retroactively.
45In the second place, as regards the argument that it is apparent from most national legal systems that provisional measures ordered, pending a final decision, retroactively cease to produce their effects when the main proceedings become devoid of purpose, it should be held that referring to national procedural rules is irrelevant, since the legality of the contested decisions are to be examined solely in the light of the rules of EU law. Moreover, as the Republic of Poland itself acknowledges, the procedural rules of the Member States are not binding on the Courts of the European Union.
46In any event, even if in certain national legal systems provisional measures ordered, pending a final decision, retroactively cease to produce their effects when the main proceedings become devoid of purpose, that finding cannot suffice to establish that those procedural rules form part of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and could, on that basis, form part of the legal order of the European Union as a source of law.
47In the third place, as regards the Republic of Poland’s line of argument that continuing to enforce the interim measures, despite the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the register, goes beyond the sole objective pursued by those measures, namely to guarantee the effectiveness of the judgment on the substance, it should be noted that, in the present case, contrary to the Republic of Poland’s argument, the periodic penalty payments imposed under Article 279 TFEU are intended not only to guarantee the effectiveness of the judgment on the substance, but also to ensure compliance with the interim measures prescribed by the order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), and to deter the Republic of Poland from delaying compliance with that order.
48If the Republic of Poland’s line of argument were upheld, the periodic penalty payment mechanism imposed under Article 279 TFEU would be deprived of all substance, since it would be tantamount to accepting that the party liable to make payment, here the Republic of Poland, is deliberately failing to fulfil the obligation to comply with the interim measures ordered until the close of the main proceedings, thereby undermining the effectiveness of EU law.
49In the fourth place, the Republic of Poland’s argument that enforcing periodic penalty payments makes the conclusion of a settlement agreement less attractive and thus impedes the development of good neighbourly relations cannot be accepted. It should be noted that the purpose of periodic penalty payments that are attached to interim measures is not to promote amicable settlement or good neighbourly relations, but, as stated in paragraph 47 above, to ensure compliance with the interim measures. It should also be noted that the conclusion of the settlement agreement and the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the register had beneficial consequences for the Republic of Poland in that the daily penalty payments ceased to be payable as from 4 February 2022 and not from the date of delivery of a judgment of the Court in Case C‑121/21.
50In the fifth place, the Republic of Poland’s argument based on the first subparagraph of Article 101(6) of the Financial Regulation cannot succeed. As set out in that provision, ‘the authorising officer responsible may cancel an established amount receivable in full or in part.’ There is therefore no obligation on the Commission to cancel an established amount receivable. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that, in the present case, the conditions laid down for recovery by offsetting were satisfied. The Commission’s authorising officer responsible did verify that the Republic of Poland’s debt existed and determined the amount of that debt.
51It follows that there has been no infringement by the Commission of Articles 101 and 102 of the Financial Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 98 of that regulation.
52Accordingly, the first plea in law must be dismissed as unfounded.
The second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, and of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
53The Republic of Poland argues that the Commission failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU. It submits that the contested decisions do not enable it to understand the reasons why the Commission continued the procedure for recovery by offsetting, despite the conclusion of the settlement agreement and the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the register.
54The Republic of Poland adds that the contested decisions do not form part of the Commission’s decision-making practice since the Commission had never previously recovered periodic penalty payments under Article 279 TFEU. The contested decisions therefore required an explicit statement of reasons. However, according to the Republic of Poland, the contested decisions did not indicate the legal basis empowering the Commission to recover the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), even though that order ceased to produce its effects. In addition, the Republic of Poland has stated that there was a close connection between, on the one hand, the obligation to state reasons and, on the other, the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
55The Commission disputes the Republic of Poland’s arguments.
56In accordance with settled case-law, the statement of reasons required under Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for measures adopted by EU institutions must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose clearly and unequivocally the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the competent court to review its legality. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on all the circumstances of each case, in particular, the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of concern, for the purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, may have in obtaining explanations (see judgment of 10 March 2016, HeidelbergCement v Commission, C‑247/14 P, EU:C:2016:149, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
57The obligation to indicate the legal basis of a measure is related to the duty to state reasons (see judgment of 1 October 2009, Commission v Council, C‑370/07, EU:C:2009:590, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
58It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment of 11 June 2020, Commission v Di Bernardo, C‑114/19 P, EU:C:2020:457, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
59The statement of reasons required for a decision to offset claims must be such as to allow precise identification of the claims to be offset, without there being any requirement for the initial reasons used in support of establishing each of these claims to be repeated in the act of offsetting (see judgment of 6 October 2015, Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission, T‑216/12, EU:T:2015:746, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited).
60Compliance with the obligation to state reasons must, in principle, be determined in accordance with the information available to the applicant, at the latest, when the action was brought. The reasons for a decision cannot be explained for the first time ex post facto before the Court, save in exceptional circumstances (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 July 2017, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Union Agency for Railways, T‑392/15, EU:T:2017:462, paragraph 74 and the case-law cited).
61It is in the light of those considerations that the Court must determine whether the contested decisions contain an adequate statement of reasons.
62In that regard, it should be noted that, on the dates on which the actions in Cases T‑200/22 and T‑314/22 were brought, namely 19 April and 25 May 2022, respectively, the Republic of Poland was aware of the letter of 22 February 2022 which had been sent to it in response to its letters of 4 and 11 February 2022 (see paragraph 17 above).
63In accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 60 above, it is in the light of the contested decisions and the letter of 22 February 2022 that the Court must determine whether the Commission complied with its obligation to state reasons.
64In the present case, in the first place, it should be pointed out that, by the contested decisions, the Republic of Poland was able precisely to identify the claims offset. The contested decisions contain, in an annex, a document setting out the calculation of the set-off and the calculation of the default interest. It should also be noted that the contested decisions contain an indication of their legal basis, specifically Articles 101 and 102 of the Financial Regulation.
65In the second place, contrary to the Republic of Poland’s submission, the letter of 22 February 2022 enables it to understand the reasons why the Commission had decided to continue enforcing payment of the debt arising from the calculation of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), despite the conclusion of the settlement agreement and the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the Court’s register. In that letter, the Commission expressed its intention to continue recovery, by way of offsetting, of the amounts payable up to 3 February 2022, given that the interim measure imposed by the order of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:420), had expired on 4 February 2022 and the Commission could not satisfy itself, on the basis of the documents provided by the Republic of Poland, that the measures necessary to comply with that order had been adopted. The Commission added that, as long as the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752), had not been ‘set aside’, it was required to enforce it for the period from 20 September 2021 to 3 February 2022 inclusive.
66In the third place, as regards the Republic of Poland’s argument that, without a previous decision-making practice on the part of the Commission, specific reasons should have been given for the contested decisions, it should be recalled, as stated in paragraph 65 above, that the reasons justifying recovery by offsetting of the amounts payable up to 3 February 2022, despite the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the Court’s register, were sufficiently clear from the letter of 22 February 2022.
67Accordingly, it must be held that the contested decisions, viewed in particular in the light of the letter of 22 February 2022, enabled the Republic of Poland to ascertain the reasons why the Commission, despite the removal of Case C‑121/21 from the Court’s register, continued to enforce payment of the debt arising from the calculation of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (C‑121/21 R, EU:C:2021:752).
68Since the contested decisions contain an adequate statement of reasons, the Republic of Poland’s argument based on the close connection between the obligation to state reasons and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is irrelevant.
69In the light of the foregoing, the second plea must be rejected and, consequently, the actions must be dismissed in their entirety.
Costs
70Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
71Since the Republic of Poland has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.
Operative part
On those grounds,THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)hereby:
1.Joins Cases T‑200/22 and T‑314/22 for the purposes of the judgment;
2.Dismisses the actions;
3.Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 May 2024.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.