# C_2015245EN.01002901.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/29

---

Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-168/15)

(2015/C 245/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A.-E. Vasilopoulou)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission implementing decision of 26 January 2015, notified under reference number C(2015) 252 final, ‘concerning the reduction of the interim payments relating to Greece’s rural development programme for the 2007-13 programming period and to the expenditure in respect of the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2014 and from 1 April 2014 to 30 June 2014, CCI 2007 GR 06 RPO 001’, by the amounts of EUR 2 75  118,75 and EUR 2 9 40  050 respectively. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission implementing decision of 26 January 2015, notified under reference number C(2015) 252 final, ‘concerning the reduction of the interim payments relating to Greece’s rural development programme for the 2007-13 programming period and to the expenditure in respect of the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2014 and from 1 April 2014 to 30 June 2014, CCI 2007 GR 06 RPO 001’, by the amounts of EUR 2 75  118,75 and EUR 2 9 40  050 respectively.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | By the first plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the contested decision, Article 16(4) of Commission Regulation No 883/2996 of 21 June 2006 (1) was misinterpreted and misapplied, the rules governing the Commission’s competence ratione temporis were infringed and the essential requirements of the procedure laid down by that provision were infringed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By the first plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the contested decision, Article 16(4) of Commission Regulation No 883/2996 of 21 June 2006 (1) was misinterpreted and misapplied, the rules governing the Commission’s competence ratione temporis were infringed and the essential requirements of the procedure laid down by that provision were infringed.

1

ratione temporis

| 2. | By the second plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the decision, Article 41(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) was misinterpreted and misapplied. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By the second plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the decision, Article 41(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) was misinterpreted and misapplied.

2

| 3. | By the third plea, it is submitted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 26(5) and Article 27(3) and (4) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and Article 36(5) and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013, and that the ne bis in idem principle, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the Hellenic Republic’s right to be heard and rights of defence were infringed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By the third plea, it is submitted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 26(5) and Article 27(3) and (4) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and Article 36(5) and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013, and that the ne bis in idem principle, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the Hellenic Republic’s right to be heard and rights of defence were infringed.

3

ne bis in idem

| 4. | By the fourth plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 27(4) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013, and infringed the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

By the fourth plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 27(4) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013, and infringed the principle of proportionality.

| 5. | Finally, by the fifth plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the contested decision, Article 27(4) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 were misinterpreted and misapplied and the concept of force majeure and exceptional circumstances was misconstrued. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Finally, by the fifth plea, it is submitted that, in adopting the contested decision, Article 27(4) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 were misinterpreted and misapplied and the concept of force majeure and exceptional circumstances was misconstrued.

force majeure

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the keeping of accounts by the paying agencies, declarations of expenditure and revenue and the conditions for reimbursing expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 1).

1

(2)  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).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

3

---