# C_2006224EN.01003002.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/30

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2006 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-332/06 P)

(2006/C 224/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, State Legal Adviser, and I. Khalkias, Member of the State Legal Service)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Hold the appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Hold the appeal admissible;

| — | Set aside or alter the judgment of the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside or alter the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

| — | Grant the appeal, in accordance with the form of order sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the appeal, in accordance with the form of order sought;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1st ground of appeal
  : The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and subparagraph (a) of the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 as amended by Article 1(3) of Regulation No 2245/99, because:

1st ground of appeal

| (a) | the Commission's communication did not satisfy the requirements of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 and therefore could not constitute the written communication for the purposes of that article or the starting point for determining the 24-month period prescribed by Regulations Nos 729/70 and 1258/1999. Thus, on the basis of the foregoing provisions, the Commission lacked temporal competence to impose financial corrections because it did not comply with the procedure, laid down in the regulations, which requires bilateral discussion including with regard to the amount of the impending correction, the assessment of which must be included in the letter under Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 which sets off the 24-month period. In any event the Commission rejected expenditure referable to a time preceding the 24-month period; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the Commission's communication did not satisfy the requirements of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 and therefore could not constitute the written communication for the purposes of that article or the starting point for determining the 24-month period prescribed by Regulations Nos 729/70 and 1258/1999. Thus, on the basis of the foregoing provisions, the Commission lacked temporal competence to impose financial corrections because it did not comply with the procedure, laid down in the regulations, which requires bilateral discussion including with regard to the amount of the impending correction, the assessment of which must be included in the letter under Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 which sets off the 24-month period. In any event the Commission rejected expenditure referable to a time preceding the 24-month period;

| (b) | the Court of First Instance made the application of Regulation No 2245/1999 retroactive in accepting that it covers expenditure not only of the financial year 2000 but also of earlier financial years. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the Court of First Instance made the application of Regulation No 2245/1999 retroactive in accepting that it covers expenditure not only of the financial year 2000 but also of earlier financial years.

2nd ground of appeal
  : The Court of First Instance misinterpreted and applied incorrectly the principles of proportionality (force majeure) and of the protection of legitimate expectations with regard to the delay in bringing rice into intervention storage because:

2nd ground of appeal

| (a) | the exceeding by nine days of the time-limit for bringing the entire quantity of rice into storage, which was due to a strike without notice by drivers of lorries for public use, amounts to a classic case of force majeure, responsibility for which cannot be attributed to Greece, whose competent authorities did everything possible to bring in the entire quantity of rice despite the unnotified strike; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the exceeding by nine days of the time-limit for bringing the entire quantity of rice into storage, which was due to a strike without notice by drivers of lorries for public use, amounts to a classic case of force majeure, responsibility for which cannot be attributed to Greece, whose competent authorities did everything possible to bring in the entire quantity of rice despite the unnotified strike;

| (b) | the fact that the Commission was informed immediately and timeously, before the time-limit expired, that the bringing of rice into storage was delayed because of the strike and the fact that Commission did not reply immediately created justified expectations that the Commission had no objection to the delay of a few days. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the fact that the Commission was informed immediately and timeously, before the time-limit expired, that the bringing of rice into storage was delayed because of the strike and the fact that Commission did not reply immediately created justified expectations that the Commission had no objection to the delay of a few days.

---