# C_2015279EN.01004201.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/42

---

Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-327/15)

(2015/C 279/52)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, Ο. Tsirkinodou and Α. Ε. Vasilopoulou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 25 March 2015 on applying financial correction on the EAGGF Guidance Section of the Operational Programme CCI No 2000GR061PO021 (GREECE — Objective 1 — Rural Reconstruction), to the amount of EUR 7 2 1 05  592,41, which was notified under number C(2015) 1936 final. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 25 March 2015 on applying financial correction on the EAGGF Guidance Section of the Operational Programme CCI No 2000GR061PO021 (GREECE — Objective 1 — Rural Reconstruction), to the amount of EUR 7 2 1 05  592,41, which was notified under number C(2015) 1936 final.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | In the first plea for annulment, it is claimed that the contested decision lacks a legal basis, because Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) 1260/1999 (1), on which it is based, has been repealed, in so far as concerns the EAGGF Guidance Section (the first part of the first plea in law), and, in any event, the legal requirements for reliance on Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) No 1260/1999 are not met in advance (the second part of the first plea in law). |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the first plea for annulment, it is claimed that the contested decision lacks a legal basis, because Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) 1260/1999 (1), on which it is based, has been repealed, in so far as concerns the EAGGF Guidance Section (the first part of the first plea in law), and, in any event, the legal requirements for reliance on Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) No 1260/1999 are not met in advance (the second part of the first plea in law).

| 2. | In the second plea for annulment, it is claimed, in the alternative to the first plea in law, that the adoption of the contested decision exceeded the competence ratione temporis of the Commission (the first part of the second plea in law), or that its adoption was out of time and in breach of essential procedural requirements and is an infringement of the right of the Hellenic Republic to be heard and of its rights of defence (the second part of the second plea in law). |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the second plea for annulment, it is claimed, in the alternative to the first plea in law, that the adoption of the contested decision exceeded the competence ratione temporis of the Commission (the first part of the second plea in law), or that its adoption was out of time and in breach of essential procedural requirements and is an infringement of the right of the Hellenic Republic to be heard and of its rights of defence (the second part of the second plea in law).

| 3. | In the third plea, it is claimed that the contested decision is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the third plea, it is claimed that the contested decision is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the Member State.

| 4. | Last, in the fourth plea for annulment it is claimed that the contested decision has infringed the principle of ne bis in idem because a multiple correction has been imposed, and in any event it is claimed that the financial correction imposed is entirely disproportionate and should be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Last, in the fourth plea for annulment it is claimed that the contested decision has infringed the principle of ne bis in idem because a multiple correction has been imposed, and in any event it is claimed that the financial correction imposed is entirely disproportionate and should be annulled.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

---