# C_2013101EN.01001301.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/13 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 11 February 2013 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 13 December 2012 in Case T-588/10 Greece v Commission

(Case C-71/13 P)

2013/C 101/27

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and E. Leftheriotou)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the appeal and set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union for the reasons more specifically set out; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| — | By the first ground of appeal in the tobacco sector the Hellenic Republic maintains that the following apply:
1.
infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005; 2.
the conditions for payment of the support in respect of tobacco were defined exhaustively and exclusively in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2075/92( 1 ) and therefore the General Court of the European Union erred when it unlawfully accepted that Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2848/1998( 2 ) lawfully laid down an additional condition for payment of the premium that the tobacco must be delivered to the first processor at the latest by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest and, further, Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998, which has the effect that as a result of late delivery by even one day the producer loses the aid in its entirety, infringes the principle of proportionality when read together with Article 39(1)(b) TFEU and Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2075/92; 3.
infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on late deliveries of tobacco); 4.
contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal and misinterpretation of Article 9(4) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the transfer of cultivation contracts) and 5.
Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2075/1992 and Article 7 of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the use of leased installations or equipment by the approved first processor). | 1. | infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005; | 2. | the conditions for payment of the support in respect of tobacco were defined exhaustively and exclusively in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2075/92( 1 ) and therefore the General Court of the European Union erred when it unlawfully accepted that Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2848/1998( 2 ) lawfully laid down an additional condition for payment of the premium that the tobacco must be delivered to the first processor at the latest by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest and, further, Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998, which has the effect that as a result of late delivery by even one day the producer loses the aid in its entirety, infringes the principle of proportionality when read together with Article 39(1)(b) TFEU and Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2075/92; | 3. | infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on late deliveries of tobacco); | 4. | contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal and misinterpretation of Article 9(4) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the transfer of cultivation contracts) and | 5. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2075/1992 and Article 7 of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the use of leased installations or equipment by the approved first processor). |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1. | infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005; | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2. | the conditions for payment of the support in respect of tobacco were defined exhaustively and exclusively in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2075/92( 1 ) and therefore the General Court of the European Union erred when it unlawfully accepted that Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2848/1998( 2 ) lawfully laid down an additional condition for payment of the premium that the tobacco must be delivered to the first processor at the latest by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest and, further, Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998, which has the effect that as a result of late delivery by even one day the producer loses the aid in its entirety, infringes the principle of proportionality when read together with Article 39(1)(b) TFEU and Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2075/92; | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3. | infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on late deliveries of tobacco); | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4. | contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal and misinterpretation of Article 9(4) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the transfer of cultivation contracts) and | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2075/1992 and Article 7 of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the use of leased installations or equipment by the approved first processor). | | | | | | | | | | |

| — | By the second ground of appeal in the area of dried grapes, it is claimed that the General Court of the European Union erred as follows:
1.
misinterpretation of the fourth indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation 1621/1999( 3 ) as to the meaning of natural disaster and 2.
misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines in respect of flat-rate corrections in the area of dried grapes (sultanas for the 2004 harvest and currants for the 2005 harvest) since the conditions for the imposition of a correction of 25 % were not met and consequently the statement of reasons in the decision is insufficient. | 1. | misinterpretation of the fourth indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation 1621/1999( 3 ) as to the meaning of natural disaster and | 2. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines in respect of flat-rate corrections in the area of dried grapes (sultanas for the 2004 harvest and currants for the 2005 harvest) since the conditions for the imposition of a correction of 25 % were not met and consequently the statement of reasons in the decision is insufficient. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 1. | misinterpretation of the fourth indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation 1621/1999( 3 ) as to the meaning of natural disaster and | | | | |
| 2. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines in respect of flat-rate corrections in the area of dried grapes (sultanas for the 2004 harvest and currants for the 2005 harvest) since the conditions for the imposition of a correction of 25 % were not met and consequently the statement of reasons in the decision is insufficient. | | | | |

| — | By the third ground of appeal in the area of cultivation of arable land, it is claimed that the following apply:
1.
infringement of European Union law in respect of the legal basis for the correction, with misinterpretation of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999( 4 ) when a valid legal basis is provided only by Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/05( 5 ) and 2.
infringement of European Union Law with misinterpretation and misapplication without updating of the guidelines for flat-rate corrections under the old CAP to the new CAP in respect of the distinction of audits as basic and supplementary, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality and the principle of legal certainty, a particular expression of which is the principle of non-retroactivity, since the amounts of the flat-rate corrections related to a distinct set of audit rules, and the contested updating of the abovementioned guidelines took place in June 2006 and consequently could not be applied to the 2006 reporting year. | 1. | infringement of European Union law in respect of the legal basis for the correction, with misinterpretation of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999( 4 ) when a valid legal basis is provided only by Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/05( 5 ) and | 2. | infringement of European Union Law with misinterpretation and misapplication without updating of the guidelines for flat-rate corrections under the old CAP to the new CAP in respect of the distinction of audits as basic and supplementary, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality and the principle of legal certainty, a particular expression of which is the principle of non-retroactivity, since the amounts of the flat-rate corrections related to a distinct set of audit rules, and the contested updating of the abovementioned guidelines took place in June 2006 and consequently could not be applied to the 2006 reporting year. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1. | infringement of European Union law in respect of the legal basis for the correction, with misinterpretation of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999( 4 ) when a valid legal basis is provided only by Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/05( 5 ) and | | | | |
| 2. | infringement of European Union Law with misinterpretation and misapplication without updating of the guidelines for flat-rate corrections under the old CAP to the new CAP in respect of the distinction of audits as basic and supplementary, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality and the principle of legal certainty, a particular expression of which is the principle of non-retroactivity, since the amounts of the flat-rate corrections related to a distinct set of audit rules, and the contested updating of the abovementioned guidelines took place in June 2006 and consequently could not be applied to the 2006 reporting year. | | | | |

| — | By the fourth ground of appeal in the area of cross compliance, it is maintained that by the decision of the General Court of the principle of non-retroactivity was infringed. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | By the fifth ground of appeal in respect of POSEI measures for the small islands of the Aegean, it is claimed that there is an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, and of the principle that action be taken within a reasonable period of time and that the European Union act timeously. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | By the sixth ground of appeal in the area of animal (bovine ovine and caprine) premiums, it is claimed that there was misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95( 6 ) and Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, and of Article 12 and 24(2) of Regulation No 2419/01( 7 ) and infringement of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state full reasons. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 70).

( 2 )  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector (OJ 1998 L 358, p. 17).

( 3 )  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes (OJ 1999 L 192, p.21).

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

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

( 6 )  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 1995 L 158, p. 6).

( 7 )  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 2001 L 327, p. 1).

---