# C_2012184EN.01001303.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/13

---

Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-150/12)

2012/C 184/25

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι. Chalkias, X. Basakou and Α. Vasilopoulou)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of 25 January 2012 No C(2011) 9335 final ‘on aid granted by Greece to cereal producing farmers and cereal collecting cooperatives (No SA 27354 (C 36/2010) (ex NN 3/2010, ex CP 11/2009))’ and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of 25 January 2012 No C(2011) 9335 final ‘on aid granted by Greece to cereal producing farmers and cereal collecting cooperatives (No SA 27354 (C 36/2010) (ex NN 3/2010, ex CP 11/2009))’ and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 25 January 2012‘on aid granted by Greece to cereal producing farmers and cereal collecting cooperatives (Number SA 27354 (C 36/2010) (ex NN 3/2010, ex CP 11/2009)]’, communicated under Number C(2011) 9335 final.

As the first ground for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is unclear, because it does not clearly reveal (i) in what respect the aid is unlawful, (ii) how the level of the aid is defined and (iii) who are the beneficiaries for whom recovery should be made. Further, the applicant maintains that the publication of the Commission’s investigation which was undertaken is unclear, with the result that the principle of legal certainty is infringed and the rights of defence of concerned third parties are harmed, contrary to Article 108(2) TFEU, read together with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 659/1999 of 22 March 1999. (1)

1

As the second ground for annulment, the applicant claims that there has been an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU, and an erroneous assessment of the facts, because the measures taken — in both forms, the establishment of a guarantee and the interest rate subsidy — do not fulfil the criteria for the definition of unlawful State aid.

As the third ground for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by an error in the assessment of the facts and contravenes an essential procedural requirement, because the Commission, by means of an erroneous assessment of the facts and with a defective and/or insufficient statement of reasons, came to the conclusion that the measures of interest rate subsidy and provision of a guarantee by the government for the funding to the Association of Agricultural Co-operatives constitute unlawful State aid, since they constitute a selective economic advantage for direct and indirect beneficiaries and threaten to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States.

As the fourth ground for annulment, the applicant maintains that the Commission made an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, and misused the discretion which it has in the field of State aid, since in any event the 2009 payment should have been regarded as consistent with the common market because of the manifestly severe economic disruption of the entire Greek economy and because the validity of a provision of European Union primary law cannot be dependent on the validity of a communication by the Commission, such as the Temporary Community framework on support (hereafter TCF). Further, the Commission rejected with an inadequate statement of reasons the applicant’s argument on the fulfilment of the conditions of the TCF in the present case.

As the fifth ground for annulment, the applicant claims that the Commission made an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 107 TFEU, since without any justification it included within the financial amount to be recovered as unlawful State aid (a) part of the interest rate which in accordance with the funding arrangement and Ministerial decision No 56700/Β3033/08.12.2008 represents a contribution (contribution of 0.12% of Law 128/75) and (b) the provision in Ministerial Decision 2/21304/0025/26.10.2010 of the guarantee premium at 2 % from public funds, which do not constitute State aid and should be excluded from the final amount to be recovered.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

1

---