----

Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-344/05)

(2005/C 281/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ioannis Khalkias, Eleni Svolopoulou)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accounts under Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, (2) excluded from Community financing various expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the animal premia — extensification, fruit and vegetables and arable crops sectors.

The applicant seeks annulment of that decision, maintaining in principle that the entire clearance of accounts procedure is invalid because Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999, (3) in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995, (4) was infringed by reason of the fact that the consultation and bilateral contacts between the applicant and the Commission did not include the specific evaluation of the expenditure to be refused, while in addition the expenditure excluded was effected prior to the 24 months preceding the Commission's written communication. According to the applicant, the period of 24 months commences much later than the Commission considers.

As regards the correction of 100 % in respect of the premium for extensification, the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment of the factual circumstances and claims that it erred as to the facts and gave an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision. The applicant considers, moreover, that the imposition of a correction at the rate of 100 % contravenes the guidelines in Commission document VI/5330/97/23.12.97, is unjustified and clearly disproportionate, and goes beyond the bounds of proper use of the Commission's discretion.

As regards the correction in the arable crops sector, the applicant disputes the Commission's finding that there was an infringement of Regulation No 3508/1992, (5) in connection with the identification of agricultural parcels. It also considers that it complied fully with the conditions in Article 15 of Regulation No 2419/2001 (6) as regards administrative and on-the-spot checks. In addition, it cites lack of reasoning and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Lastly, in connection with the correction in the fruit and vegetables sector, the applicant considers that the Commission has misinterpreted Article 20(5) and (7) of Regulation No 1169/1997. (7) In any event, the applicant disputes the reasons given in the contested decision with regard to that chapter and alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.

----

(1)OJ L 188 of 20.7.2005, p. 36.

(2)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103.

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of 08.07.1995, p. 6.

(5)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, OJ L 355 of 05.12.1992, p. 1.

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, OJ L 327 of 12.12.2001, p. 11.

(7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 of 26 June 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits, OJ L 169 of 27.06.1997, p. 15.

----