# C_2012250EN.01001601.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/16

---

Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-260/12)

2012/C 250/30

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Samoni and N. Dafniou)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | grant the application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for annulment;

| — | annul the contested decision of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Commission;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs;

| — | join, on account of identity of the factual and legal grounds, the present action for annulment with the similar action brought by the Hellenic Republic against the European Commission in Case T-105/12. |
| --- | --- |

—

join, on account of identity of the factual and legal grounds, the present action for annulment with the similar action brought by the Hellenic Republic against the European Commission in Case T-105/12.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment (under Article 263 TFEU) of Commission Decision 416117 of 11 April 2012‘relating to continued payment by the Hellenic Republic of the daily penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-65/05’, in so far as making of the penalty payment is sought from 22 August 2011 onwards. Under the aforementioned contested decision, given that, according to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic appears not to have undertaken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05 and subsequently its second judgment in Case C-109/08, the Hellenic Republic is called upon to pay the sum of EUR 3 847 392 as a penalty payment for the period from 1 December 2011 until 31 March 2012.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

| 1. | First, misappraisal on the part of the Commission, in relation to adoption by the Hellenic Republic of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
  The Hellenic Republic submits that the defendant appraised and interpreted incorrectly the measures adopted by the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment. The Hellenic Republic maintains that it has taken all the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment in adopting Law 4002/2011 by which the contested articles of Law 3037/2002 are repealed, in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, misappraisal on the part of the Commission, in relation to adoption by the Hellenic Republic of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice

The Hellenic Republic submits that the defendant appraised and interpreted incorrectly the measures adopted by the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment. The Hellenic Republic maintains that it has taken all the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment in adopting Law 4002/2011 by which the contested articles of Law 3037/2002 are repealed, in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05.

| 2. | Second, exceeding by the Commission of its power
  The Commission exceeded the limits of its mandate as guardian of the Treaty, since it did not confine itself, as required of it, to establishing whether or not measures for compliance were clearly carried out. Furthermore, it went beyond the limits of the Court of Justice’s judgments, given that the Hellenic Republic complied fully with those judgments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, exceeding by the Commission of its power

The Commission exceeded the limits of its mandate as guardian of the Treaty, since it did not confine itself, as required of it, to establishing whether or not measures for compliance were clearly carried out. Furthermore, it went beyond the limits of the Court of Justice’s judgments, given that the Hellenic Republic complied fully with those judgments.

| 3. | Third, deficiency of reasoning on the part of the Commission
  In its decision contested by the Hellenic Republic, the Commission did not explain, and did not set out expressly, the reasons for which it sought the continued making of the penalty payment for the period after the adoption of Law 4002/2011, that is to say, from 22 August 2011 until 31 March 2012.
  The Hellenic Republic disputes that additional sum since it considers that it complied fully with the judgments of the Court of Justice once that law was promulgated. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third, deficiency of reasoning on the part of the Commission

In its decision contested by the Hellenic Republic, the Commission did not explain, and did not set out expressly, the reasons for which it sought the continued making of the penalty payment for the period after the adoption of Law 4002/2011, that is to say, from 22 August 2011 until 31 March 2012.

The Hellenic Republic disputes that additional sum since it considers that it complied fully with the judgments of the Court of Justice once that law was promulgated.

| 4. | Fourth, incorrect use of legal basis
  The Hellenic Republic submits that, if the Commission considered that Law 4002/2001 was not being applied correctly by the Hellenic Republic, it had to use Article 258 TFEU and initiate a fresh infringement procedure, and not require continued making of the penalty payment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth, incorrect use of legal basis

The Hellenic Republic submits that, if the Commission considered that Law 4002/2001 was not being applied correctly by the Hellenic Republic, it had to use Article 258 TFEU and initiate a fresh infringement procedure, and not require continued making of the penalty payment.

---