Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) 15 July 2026

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)

15 July 2026 ( * )

( Non-contractual liability of the European Union – EAGF and EAFRD – Judgment annulling a Commission decision excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the EAGF and EAFRD – Reimbursement by the Commission of the amount unduly received – Commission’s refusal to pay interest on the excess amount received – Obligation to pay interest – Compensation at a standard rate for the loss of enjoyment of the amount unduly paid to the Commission – Article 266 TFEU – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals )

In Case T‑661/24,

Czech Republic, represented by J. Vláčil, J. Očková and J. Benešová, acting as Agents,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by P. Rossi, J. Hradil and M. Salyková, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, President, H. Cassagnabère and T. Pavelin (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: J. Čuboň, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 5 February 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its action based on Article 268 TFEU, the Czech Republic seeks, in essence, compensation for the damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the European Commission’s failure to pay interest allegedly due following the annulment, by the judgment of 19 December 2019, Czech Republic v Commission (T‑509/18, EU:T:2019:876), of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 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 2018 L 152, p. 29), imposing on it a financial correction under the EAFRD.

Background to the dispute

2 On 13 June 2018, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision 2018/873. In that decision, it found that certain expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic under the EAFRD had been in breach of EU law and could not be financed under the EAFRD because of a weakness identified in the national management and control system. Accordingly, it applied a flat-rate financial correction of 5%, in the amount of EUR 151 116.65 (‘the financial correction at issue’).

3 On 10 August 2018, the Commission applied Implementing Decision 2018/873 and offset the amounts to be recovered as financial corrections against the interim payment in respect of the second quarter of 2018.

4 By judgment of 19 December 2019, Czech Republic v Commission (T‑509/18, EU:T:2019:876), the General Court upheld the action brought by the Czech Republic against Implementing Decision 2018/873 and annulled that decision in so far as it excluded from EU financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 151 116.65 incurred by the Czech Republic under the EAFRD in 2016.

5 On 16 June 2020, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/859 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the [EAGF] and the [EAFRD] (OJ 2020 L 195, p. 59) which formally provided for the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 151 116.65, pursuant to the judgment of 19 December 2019, Czech Republic v Commission (T‑509/18, EU:T:2019:876), but not for the payment of interest on that amount.

6 On 27 October 2020, the Commission reimbursed the amount of EUR 151 116.65 to the Czech Republic.

7 By letter of 26 November 2024, the Czech Republic made a request to the Commission seeking that interest be paid to it in respect of the period from 10 August 2018, the date on which the financial correction at issue was implemented, to 27 October 2020, the date on which the Commission reimbursed the amounts which were the subject of that financial correction. The interest claimed by the Czech Republic amounted to at least EUR 11 722.93, obtained by applying an interest rate of 3.5% to the amount of EUR 151 116.65 which had been reimbursed by the Commission. The interest rate requested was that applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) to its principal refinancing operations between 10 August 2018 and 27 October 2020, increased by 3.5 percentage points.

Forms of order sought

8 The Czech Republic claims, in essence, that the Court should:

– order the Commission to pay it compensation in the amount of EUR 11 722.93 for the damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Commission’s refusal to pay it interest on the amount of EUR 151 116.65 in respect of the period from 10 August 2018 to 27 October 2020;

– order the Commission to pay, together with that compensation, default interest from the date of delivery of the forthcoming judgment until full payment, at the rate applied by the ECB for its main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 percentage points;

– order the Commission to pay the costs.

9 The Commission contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– in the alternative, should the Court find that the conditions for incurring non-contractual liability are met in the present case, apply the compensatory interest rate provided for in Article 109 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);

– order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Law

Whether the conditions for incurring non-contractual liability are satisfied

10 In essence, in support of its action for damages, the Czech Republic relies on the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488), in order to argue that the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU requires that, following the annulment of a Commission decision imposing a financial correction under the EAFRD, the repayment to the Member State of the amount of the correction must be subject to interest. According to the Czech Republic, the payment of interest constitutes a necessary measure to comply with the judgment annulling a decision to impose a financial correction, with a view to providing compensation, at a standard rate, for the loss of enjoyment of the amounts which are the subject of the financial correction. It maintains that interest must be paid in respect of the entire period from the date of the undue payment until the amount is repaid to the Member State.

11 The Czech Republic submits that the Commission’s refusal to pay interest constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU such as to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union.

12 In response to the Commission’s arguments, the Czech Republic maintains primarily that a decision imposing a financial correction deprives the Member State of enjoyment of the amounts which are the subject of that correction and adds that expenditure excluded by way of that financial correction must be financed by drawing from the Member State’s own budget.

13 In particular, the Czech Republic claims that it is incorrect to consider that the amounts made available by the Commission in the form of pre-financing payments made it possible to compensate for the unavailability of the amounts reimbursed to the Commission following a decision imposing a financial correction. It points out, in that regard, that the purpose of a financial correction is precisely to exclude certain expenditure from EU financing. Thus, until the time a Commission decision imposing such a financial correction is annulled, the Member State cannot use any EU financing to cover the excluded expenditure.

14 The Czech Republic adds that, in practice, when the Commission decides to exclude certain amounts from EU financing, the Member State is obliged to cover that deficit from its own budget. It states that, in the present case, the excluded amounts had already been paid to the farmers and those beneficiaries were not required to reimburse them.

15 Furthermore, it claims that it is irrelevant that a financial correction decision comes under the system of shared management between the Commission and the Member State. Interest is payable since the decision to make financial corrections is an authoritative act of the Commission by which that institution has the power to compel the Member State to reimburse certain funds.

16 The Czech Republic states that the conditions relating to the existence of damage and a causal link are also satisfied. It claims that the damage suffered consists in not having received interest for the entire period from the date of payment of the amount unduly received until its reimbursement.

17 The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the Czech Republic.

Preliminary observations

18 In the system of judicial review provided for by the Treaties, the obligation arising under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU can be implemented by means of the action for annulment referred to in Article 263 TFEU or by means of the action for failure to act referred to in Article 265 TFEU, the individual also being able to bring before the EU Courts an action for non-contractual liability under Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU (see order of 22 December 2022, British Airways v Commission , T‑480/21, not published, EU:T:2022:863, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

19 The second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU provides that, in the case of non-contractual liability, the European Union must, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties.

20 It is settled case-law that the European Union may incur non-contractual liability only if three conditions are fulfilled, namely the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the author of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties (see judgment of 10 September 2019, HTTS v Council , C‑123/18 P, EU:C:2019:694, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).

21 If any one of the conditions mentioned in the preceding paragraph is not satisfied, the action must be dismissed in its entirety and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions for non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union. Nor is the EU judicature required to examine those conditions in any particular order (see judgment of 5 September 2019, European Union v Guardian Europe and Guardian Europe v European Union , C‑447/17 P and C‑479/17 P, EU:C:2019:672, paragraph 148 and the case-law cited).

The existence of a sufficiently serious breach

22 Under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, the institution whose act has been declared void must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment declaring that act void with ex tunc effect (judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom , C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488, paragraph 51).

23 The obligation under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU to take the necessary measures to reverse the effects of the illegalities found may, in the case of an act that has already been executed, take the form of restoring the applicant to the position he or she was in prior to that act (judgment of 10 October 2001, Corus UK v Commission , T‑171/99, EU:T:2001:249, paragraph 50).

24 As is apparent from paragraph 52 of the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488), and from the case-law cited therein, the payment of interest constitutes a measure which must be adopted by the Commission to comply with a judgment annulling a decision, for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in that it is designed to compensate at a standard rate for the loss of enjoyment of the monies owed.

25 Furthermore, the obligation to repay amounts of money received in breach of EU law, whether by a national authority or an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union, and to add interest to that repayment covering the entire period from the date of payment of those sums of money to the date of their repayment constitutes the expression of a general principle of recovery of amounts paid but not due (judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom , C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488, paragraph 56).

26 As is apparent from paragraph 62 of the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488), and, in essence, from paragraphs 103 and 104 of the judgment of 20 January 2021, Commission v Printeos (C‑301/19 P, EU:C:2021:39), where an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union is obliged, under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, to reimburse a given sum of money together with interest, it has no discretion as to whether it is appropriate to pay that interest, so that the mere infringement of EU law consisting in the refusal to pay that interest is sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union.

27 Lastly, the interest to be paid under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU in order to compensate for the loss of enjoyment is ‘at a standard rate’, so that the EU institution, body, office or agency cannot escape that obligation on the ground that the applicant has not sufficiently proved the existence of harm (judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom , C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488, paragraph 62).

28 In the present case, by the judgment of 19 December 2019, Czech Republic v Commission (T‑509/18, EU:T:2019:876), the General Court annulled Implementing Decision 2018/873 by which the Commission imposed, pursuant to Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549), the financial correction at issue, excluding the sum of EUR 151 116.65 from the financing paid to the Czech Republic under the EAFRD.

29 It is necessary, first of all, to examine the legal framework of a financial correction imposed on the basis of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, before analysing whether there was an obligation on the part of the Commission to pay interest to the Czech Republic, following the annulment of the decision imposing the financial correction at issue.

– The legal framework of a financial correction imposed on the basis of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013

30 First, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, the EAFRD comes under the general budget of the European Union. As set out in Article 5 of that regulation, it is to finance the European Union’s financial contribution to rural development programmes implemented in accordance with EU law on support for rural development.

31 Secondly, it should be noted that, pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the [EAFRD] and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320), the EAFRD is implemented in shared management between the Member States and the European Union. In accordance with Article 317 TFEU, in the context of shared management, the Commission is to implement the budget in cooperation with the Member States, on its own responsibility and within the limits of the appropriations. Member States are to cooperate with the Commission to ensure that the appropriations are used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management.

32 Article 63(1) of Regulation 2018/1046 specifies, in that regard, that where the Commission implements the budget under shared management, tasks relating to budget implementation are to be delegated to the Member States.

33 As is apparent from Articles 6 to 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the [EAFRD] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487), the EAFRD budget is implemented by the Member States as part of rural development programmes, submitted by each Member State for approval by the Commission.

34 In the context of the implementation of those rural development programmes, in accordance with Article 49 of Regulation No 1305/2013, the selection of operations financed under the EAFRD is to be managed at the level of the Member States. Article 7 of Regulation No 1306/2013, in addition, provides that the management and control of EAFRD expenditure, including payment of that expenditure, is to be carried out at the level of the Member States. In particular, as is apparent from Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, Article 36(1) and (2) of that regulation and Article 22 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1306/2013 with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59), payments to beneficiaries are to be made by the Member States and then reimbursed quarterly by the Commission on the basis of a declaration of expenditure.

35 Lastly, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation No 1306/2013, the appropriations necessary to finance the EAFRD expenditure are to be made available to the Member States in the form of pre-financing, interim payments and the payment of a balance.

36 First of all, in accordance with Article 35(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 81(1) of Regulation No 1303/2013, after the approval of a rural development programme, the Commission is to pay the initial pre-financing amount for the whole programming period. In accordance with Article 35(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013, interest generated on the pre-financing is to be posted to the rural development programme and deducted from the amount of public expenditure indicated on the final declaration of expenditure, when the programme is closed. In addition, in accordance with Article 35(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013, the total pre-financing amount is to be cleared before the rural development programme is closed.

37 Article 81(2) of Regulation No 1303/2013 states that initial pre-financing is to be used only for payments to beneficiaries in the implementation of the programme. It is to be made available without delay to the body responsible for that purpose.

38 As is apparent from recital 70 of Regulation No 1303/2013 and recital 25 of Regulation No 1306/2013, pre-financing payments are made to the Member States precisely so that they can draw on EU funds as soon as they begin the rural development programme. A prefinancing system is therefore needed to ensure a steady flow of funds so that payments to beneficiaries are made at the appropriate time.

39 Next, interim payments are made quarterly in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation No 1306/2013 to reimburse expenditure actually effected by the paying agencies of the Member State under the EAFRD.

40 Finally, Article 37 of Regulation No 1306/2013 provides that the balance is to be paid when the programme is closed.

41 Thirdly, Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 provides that where expenditure under the EAFRD has not been effected in conformity with EU law, the Commission is to make financial corrections by adopting implementing acts determining the amounts to be excluded from EU financing. In accordance with Article 85(1) of Regulation No 1303/2013, where the Commission makes such a financial correction, it is to cancel all or part of the EU contribution to a rural development programme and to effect recovery from the Member State, in order to exclude from EU financing expenditure which has already been incurred and which was in breach of applicable law.

42 In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 34(8) of Regulation No 908/2014, where a decision imposing a financial correction is adopted under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, the deductions from EU financing are to be made by the Commission from the payment for which a declaration of expenditure is submitted by the Member State after that decision has been adopted.

43 Furthermore, it should also be noted that, according to Article 54 of Regulation No 1306/2013, Member States are, save as otherwise provided in that article, under an obligation to request recovery of undue payments from the beneficiaries following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence. Under Article 56 of that regulation, amounts of the EU financing under the EAFRD which are cancelled and amounts recovered, as well as the interest thereon, are to be reallocated to the programme concerned. However, the cancelled or recovered EU funds may be reused by Member States only for an operation under the same rural development programme and provided the funds are not reallocated to operations which have been the subject of a financial adjustment. After the closure of a rural development programme, the Member State is to refund the sums recovered to the European Union’s budget.

– The obligation to include interest when the financial correction is reimbursed

44 It is in the light of the legal framework set out in paragraphs 30 to 43 above that it is necessary to examine whether, as the Czech Republic submits, the automatic and unconditional obligation to pay interest, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, as it results from the case-law set out in paragraphs 23 to 27 above, is placed on the Commission in the specific case of the annulment of a decision imposing a financial correction under the EAFRD.

45 In the first place, it should be noted that the obligation to pay interest, as established by the case-law set out in paragraphs 23 to 27 above, and in particular by the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488), was established in the context, distinct from the present case, where an amount had been unduly received from a person. As is apparent from paragraphs 53 to 56 of the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488), the obligation to pay an amount of interest together with the reimbursement, as established by the case-law, concerns the situation of a ‘person’ who has unduly paid an amount in respect of a fine, sanction, penalty, tax, levy or other payment to an EU institution or the authorities of a Member State. Those considerations thus concern the right of a person to obtain the payment of interest intended to compensate for the unavailability of an amount unduly received by the administration.

46 As is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 30 to 34 above, in the context of shared management, the implementation of the EU budget allocated to the EAFRD and of that EU fund are delegated to the Member States, which cannot therefore be treated in the same way as persons.

47 Moreover, as is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 30 to 34 above, the Member States are not beneficiaries of EAFRD expenditure. The Member States are responsible, under shared management, for the management and implementation of EU funds. Accordingly, as the Commission correctly points out, where a Member State has to reimburse amounts as a result of a financial correction, it reimburses EU funds made available to it for the purposes of managing the EAFRD.

48 In the light of those factors, it must therefore be held that, contrary to the Czech Republic’s claims, the circumstances in the present case are different from the circumstances referred to in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488). The considerations set out therein do not take into account the nature of the relationship between the Member States and the Commission, the specific features of shared management, or the fact that Member States make EU funds available on a delegated basis. Those considerations are therefore not directly applicable in the context of the annulment of a decision imposing a financial correction on a Member State.

49 In the second place, it should be noted that the automatic and unconditional nature of the obligation to pay interest, as established by the case-law set out in paragraphs 24 to 27 above, is implicitly, but necessarily, based on the premiss that, following the annulment of a decision imposing a payment on an institution, the addressee of that decision suffer actual and certain damage as a result of the loss of enjoyment of the amount to be reimbursed to it.

50 However, as is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 35 to 43 above, a financial correction such as the financial correction at issue forms part of a complex set of financial flows spanning the entire duration of the implementation of the rural development programme. Unlike the situations referred to in paragraphs 52, 55 and 56 of the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488), it is not certain, in the present context, that the annulment of a decision imposing a financial correction automatically entails a loss of enjoyment by the Member State of the amount which is the subject of the financial correction.

51 First, as is apparent from paragraphs 35 and 38 above, the Member States have access to pre-financed amounts in order to effect EAFRD expenditure, including that which will later become subject to a financial correction. Accordingly, the Member States are not, in principle, required to mobilise their own financial resources to effect EAFRD expenditure.

52 As the Commission stated in its written submissions, the making available to the Member State of additional appropriations, by means of interim payments, makes it possible to replenish the cash reserve initially constituted by the amount paid as pre-financing. As a result, the amount initially paid as pre-financing becomes available to finance, through the funds provided by the European Union, new EAFRD expenditure incurred by the Member State, without that Member State being in principle obliged to actually mobilise its own financial resources to cover that expense.

53 Secondly, a financial correction does not necessarily entail that the Member State must make a payment to the Commission by drawing directly from its national resources. As stated in paragraph 42 above, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 34(8) of Regulation No 908/2014, the amount of the financial correction is to be deducted from the interim payments or from the payment of the balance made by the Commission as reimbursement of other expenditure incurred by the Member State under the rural development programme.

54 Therefore, where the amount of a financial correction is deducted from the amount of an interim payment, the cash reserve, initially constituted by the amount paid as pre-financing, which is actually available to the Member State for financing future EAFRD expenditure, is reduced by the amount of that correction.

55 In that regard, it should be noted that the sole reduction in the amount paid as pre-financing actually available for financing EAFRD expenditure cannot, as such, be treated as a loss of enjoyment by the Member State of part of its national resources.

56 As the Commission and the Czech Republic confirmed at the hearing, it follows from Article 35(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 that the amount paid as pre-financing is not intended to generate interest for the benefit of the Member States. Moreover, in accordance with Article 35(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013, the total amount paid as pre-financing is in any event to be cleared before the rural development programme is closed. That clearance procedure consists in charging the expenditure declared by the Member State to the amount made available as pre-financing instead of reimbursing that expenditure by means of an interim payment or by paying off the balance. Thus, the Commission recovers the balance of the pre-financing from the Member State only when the programme is closed, if the amount paid as pre-financing has not been fully utilised.

57 Thirdly, as stated in paragraph 43 above, the Member States are, in principle, under an obligation to request recovery of undue payments from the beneficiaries following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence attributable to those beneficiaries. Where the amounts which are the subject of a financial correction imposed by the Commission on a Member State are recovered by the Member State from the beneficiary, the imposition of the financial correction cannot, in any event, result in the Member State losing the enjoyment of part of its national financial resources.

58 Therefore, in view of the lack of certainty as to the effect of a financial correction on the national resources of the Member State, it cannot be inferred from the judgment of 11 June 2024, Commission v Deutsche Telekom (C‑221/22 P, EU:C:2024:488), that the Commission is subject to an obligation in principle, which is absolute and unconditional, as established in that judgment, automatically to pay interest in compliance with a judgment annulling a decision imposing a financial correction under the EAFRD.

59 That conclusion is not called into question by the arguments put forward by the Czech Republic.

60 Contrary to what the Czech Republic maintains, the fact that there are isolated cases in which the Commission has, of its own motion, added interest to the reimbursement of financial corrections is not such as to establish that such an obligation applies automatically and unconditionally to the Commission under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, once a decision imposing a financial correction is annulled.

61 Furthermore, contrary to what the Czech Republic maintains, the fact that a decision applying a financial correction is binding on the Member State concerned is not sufficient to consider that interest must be paid in the event that that decision is annulled. To accept such an argument would be to disregard the fact that interest must be paid pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU only in so far as it is intended to compensate for the loss of enjoyment of the sum to be repaid.

– The absence of an obligation to pay interest in the present case

62 In the present case, the Czech Republic submits that, since the payments had already been made to the beneficiaries and could not be recovered after the imposition of the financial correction at issue, that correction led to the Czech Republic’s loss of enjoyment of the corresponding amount.

63 However, first, it is common ground that pre-financing was made available to the Czech Republic in the amount of EUR 69 170 219.88, in 2015 and in 2016.

64 In addition, as the Commission submits, each time the Czech Republic obtained reimbursement of expenditure incurred under the EAFRD in the form of interim payments, the cash reserve initially constituted by the pre-financing was replenished and became available again for financing new EAFRD expenditure effected by that Member State, with the result that the Czech Republic has not shown that it was obliged actually to mobilise its own national resources in order to effect that expenditure.

65 Secondly, as is apparent from Annex A.1 to the application, the financial correction at issue was deducted from the interim payment made to the Czech Republic in order for that State to implement the rural development programme for the second quarter of 2018. The financial correction at issue did not therefore involve a payment to the Commission by the Czech Republic from its own financial resources.

66 Thirdly, it should be noted that the amount made available to the Czech Republic by the Commission as pre-financing, reduced by the amount of the financial correction at issue, remained, in principle, available during the period from 10 August 2018 to 27 October 2020, during which that financial correction was implemented. It is common ground that, in the present case, the clearance procedure in respect of pre-financing, provided for in Article 35(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013, did not begin until 2023.

67 Fourthly, the Czech Republic, including in its replies to the questions put by the Court by means of the measure of organisation of procedure and at the hearing, has not adduced any evidence to support the view that the pre-financing was not available or that it was insufficient or any other evidence capable of demonstrating that it actually had to mobilise its national resources to offset the reimbursement of expenditure temporarily declared ineligible as a result of the financial correction at issue.

68 The evidence produced by the Czech Republic in support of its application, namely the interim payment report for the second quarter of 2018, the corresponding statement of account of the Ministry of Agriculture, dated 10 August 2018, and a statement of account from the Ministry of Agriculture dated 27 October 2020, do not make it possible to establish that the Czech Republic actually mobilised its national resources. Such documents only show the offsetting carried out by the Commission at the time of the interim payment for the second quarter of 2018 and the reimbursement of the amount of the financial correction at issue in 2020.

69 Moreover, the Czech Republic produced two accounting documents in Annexes E.1 and E.2. It is apparent from those two documents that the amount of the financial correction at issue was booked, successively, as a ‘liability, with a reduction in revenues’, and then as a ‘receivable, with an increase in revenues’ in the accounts of the Czech Ministry of Agriculture. However, the creation of an entry for the amount corresponding to the financial correction at issue in the accounts of the Ministry of Agriculture cannot be interpreted as meaning that that financial correction was financed by drawing from the national resources of the Czech Republic. Those accounting entries do not, in themselves, prove that the Czech Republic actually had to mobilise its own resources in order to offset the temporary reduction in the available funds occurring as a result of the financial correction at issue, which was subsequently annulled.

70 Furthermore, the Czech Republic asserts that, in practice, it does not use the amounts paid as pre-financing, with the result that it is obliged to cover the amount of the financial correction from its own national resources. However, it must be held that, since the amounts received as pre-financing at its disposal, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, have always been sufficient for the Czech Republic to cover the EAFRD expenditure which it incurred during the relevant period, it was as a result of the Czech Republic’s choice alone that those pre-financed amounts were not used. Consequently, the Czech Republic cannot claim that it had to cover the amount of the financial correction at issue from its own national resources.

71 The foregoing findings are not called into question by the argument put forward by the Czech Republic that Article 85 of Regulation No 1303/2013 and Article 52 and Article 81(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 preclude the pre-financing from being used to finance the financial correction at issue.

72 The issue is not the financial correction at issue being directly financed by the amount made available as pre-financing, but rather the fact that the Czech Republic was not being required to actually offset the reduction in the funds made available to it occurring as a result of that financial correction by drawing from its national resources. Since the amount of the financial correction at issue was lower than the balance of the pre-financed amount made available to the Czech Republic, it did not deprive that Member State of the possibility of using the remaining pre-financed amount which was available for financing the other expenditure under the EAFRD. Furthermore, as is apparent from paragraph 69 above, the Czech Republic has not established that it had to commit its own resources to offset the financial correction, pending its annulment and, ultimately, its reimbursement. Moreover, contrary to the Czech Republic’s claims, the provisions referred to in paragraph 71 above do not call into question the fact that the amount paid as pre-financing could be used initially for financing EAFRD expenditure before it was subject to the financial correction at issue.

73 In the light of all of the foregoing and notwithstanding the fact that the amounts which were the subject of the financial correction at issue were not recovered from the beneficiaries, it cannot be found that the financial correction at issue involved an actual mobilisation of the national resources of the Czech Republic or, a fortiori, a loss of enjoyment by that Member State of the amount corresponding to that financial correction.

74 Accordingly, the payment of interest did not constitute a necessary measure to be taken by the Commission to comply with the judgment of 19 December 2019, Czech Republic v Commission (T‑509/18, EU:T:2019:876), in accordance with its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.

75 In those circumstances, in the absence of an obligation to pay interest in the present case, the Commission did not commit a sufficiently serious breach of the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union, by not adding interest to the reimbursement of the financial correction at issue.

76 Therefore, the first condition for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability, relating to the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, is not satisfied. In accordance with the case-law set out in paragraph 21 above, that finding alone is sufficient to exclude non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union.

77 As a result, the present action must be dismissed.

Costs

78 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Czech Republic has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Kowalik-Bańczyk | Cassagnabère | Pavelin

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 15 July 2026.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: Czech.