# C_2015171EN.01002701.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/27 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 2 March 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-112/15)

(2015/C 171/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι.-Κ. Khalkias, G. Κanellopoulos, Ε. Leftheriotou and Α.-Ε. Vasilopoulou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [notified under document C(2014) 10135] (OJ 2012 L 369, p. 71), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure which was incurred in the field of area payments in the 2008 claim year and correspond to: (a) 10 % of the whole amount of expenditure incurred for pasture land payments, (b) 5 % of the whole amount of expenditure incurred for additional coupled payments and (c) 5 % of the whole amount of the expenditure incurred in the area of rural development. |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | With regard to the imposed 10 % correction with respect to pasture land:
—
The first plea in law in support of annulment is a claim of misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004( 1 ), as concerns the definition of pasture, failure to state adequate statement of reasons and an infringement of the principle of proportionality. | — | The first plea in law in support of annulment is a claim of misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004( 1 ), as concerns the definition of pasture, failure to state adequate statement of reasons and an infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The first plea in law in support of annulment is a claim of misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004( 1 ), as concerns the definition of pasture, failure to state adequate statement of reasons and an infringement of the principle of proportionality. | | |

| 2. | With regard to the imposed 5 % corrections with respect to additional coupled payments and measures for rural development:
—
the second plea in law in support of annulment is a claim that the financial correction to the extent of 5 % with respect to additional coupled payments was imposed on the basis of error as to the facts, failure to state adequate of reasons and an infringement of the principle of proportionality; —
by the third plea in law in support of annulment, the applicant claims that there are no grounds for the imposition of the financial correction imposed to the extent of 5 % with respect to Pillar 2 payments and in any event the relevant assessment by the Commission is made on the basis of error as to the facts and is manifestly disproportionate to the risks which its findings with respect to Pillar 2 measures involve. In particular, as regards Measure 214 of the Rural Development Programme, the applicant claims that the correction which has been imposed is in part the second which has been imposed for the same reason and is therefore unlawful and should be annulled. | — | the second plea in law in support of annulment is a claim that the financial correction to the extent of 5 % with respect to additional coupled payments was imposed on the basis of error as to the facts, failure to state adequate of reasons and an infringement of the principle of proportionality; | — | by the third plea in law in support of annulment, the applicant claims that there are no grounds for the imposition of the financial correction imposed to the extent of 5 % with respect to Pillar 2 payments and in any event the relevant assessment by the Commission is made on the basis of error as to the facts and is manifestly disproportionate to the risks which its findings with respect to Pillar 2 measures involve. In particular, as regards Measure 214 of the Rural Development Programme, the applicant claims that the correction which has been imposed is in part the second which has been imposed for the same reason and is therefore unlawful and should be annulled. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the second plea in law in support of annulment is a claim that the financial correction to the extent of 5 % with respect to additional coupled payments was imposed on the basis of error as to the facts, failure to state adequate of reasons and an infringement of the principle of proportionality; | | | | |
| — | by the third plea in law in support of annulment, the applicant claims that there are no grounds for the imposition of the financial correction imposed to the extent of 5 % with respect to Pillar 2 payments and in any event the relevant assessment by the Commission is made on the basis of error as to the facts and is manifestly disproportionate to the risks which its findings with respect to Pillar 2 measures involve. In particular, as regards Measure 214 of the Rural Development Programme, the applicant claims that the correction which has been imposed is in part the second which has been imposed for the same reason and is therefore unlawful and should be annulled. | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).

---