Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Lithuania / Supreme Administrative Court / A-291-492/2016

A.N. v The National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture
Policy area
Agriculture
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania
Type
Decision
Decision date
10/02/2016

Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea

Title V: Citizens' rights

Article 41 - Right to good administration

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Lithuania / Supreme Administrative Court / A-291-492/2016

    Key facts of the case:

    The Applicant A.N. submitted an application to the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture (Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos) aiming to receive direct payments and aid for the utilised agricultural area and crops (applicant declared 11.25 ha, for which she received aid-payments). However, almost after a year the National Paying Agency declared that the applicant requested payments for 0.32 ha area unsuitable for the aid, therefore, the applicant had to return a part of the received payments (LTL 216,55 (~€62). The first instance court declared the decision of the Agency unlawful and unfounded and quashed it. The National Paying Agency submitted an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas). The Court decided that the National Paying Agency had not provided precise and reliable material, which would prove that utilised agricultural area was unsuitable for the aid and direct payments. Moreover, it was noted that the applicant was not informed about the data of repetitive inspection, therefore she could not submit explanations or evidence, which could deny the results of the inspection. 

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Court rejected the appeal of the National Paying Agency and declared that the right to be heard should be applied not only in cases, when an individual faces penalties, but also in cases, when a decision affecting his/her interests negatively might be taken.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The extended panel of the Supreme Administrative Court in the decision of 8 December 2010 in administrative case No. A756-686/2010 emphasized that by defining the content of principle of good administration in the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights inter alia the “right to be heard” is also noted, which means that every person should be heard before applying to him/her any unfavourable individual measure (Paragraph 2(a) Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). This provision of the Charter expresses general legal values, which might be considered as the additional source for legal interpretation, while deciding on the content of principle of good administration in Lithuania. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union the principle of the right of defence, which is applicable not only in cases, when an individual faces penalties, but also in cases, when a decision affecting his/her interests negatively might be taken, requires that the addressee of the decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views (for instance, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2002 in the case Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze (C-395/00), para. 51).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo išplėstinė teisėjų kolegija 2010 m. gruodžio 8 d. sprendime administracinėje byloje Nr. A756-686/2010 akcentavo, kad Europos Sąjungos Pagrindinių teisių chartijoje apibrėžiant gero administravimo principo turinį, be kita ko, taip pat nurodoma „teisė būti išklausytam“, kuri reiškia, jog kiekvienas asmuo turi būti išklausytas prieš taikant bet kokią individualią jam nepalankią priemonę (Pagrindinių teisių chartijos 41 str. 2 d. a p.). Ši Chartijos nuostata išreiškia bendro pobūdžio teisines vertybes, į kurias, sprendžiant dėl gero administravimo principo turinio Lietuvoje, gali būti atsižvelgiama kaip į papildomą teisės aiškinimo šaltinį. Pagal Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo praktiką, teisės į gynybą principas, kuris taikomas ne tik tais atvejais, kai asmeniui gresia sankcijos, bet ir tada, kai gali būti priimamas sprendimas, kuriuo asmens interesai būtų paveikiami neigiamai, reikalauja, kad sprendimų, kuriais reikšmingai paveikiami asmens interesai, adresatas turėtų galimybę veiksmingai išreikšti savo nuomonę (pvz., Teisingumo Teismo 2002 m. gruodžio 12 d. sprendimas Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA prieš Ministero delle Finanze (C-395/00), 51 p.).