# C_2020222EN.01002601.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/26

---

Action brought on 16 April 2020 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-217/20)

(2020/C 222/29)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A. Vasilopoulou and E. Krompa)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Hellenic Republic amounting to a total gross amount of EUR 9 657 608,85, corresponding to a total net amount of EUR 9 590 402,53, incurred and declared in the context of the EAFRD in respect of measures 123A, 125A, 321 and 322 of the rural development programme for the period 2007-2013 and measures 4.2, 4.3, 7.2 and 7.4 of the rural development programme for the period 2014-2020, for the financial years 2011 to 2018, and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Hellenic Republic amounting to a total gross amount of EUR 9 657 608,85, corresponding to a total net amount of EUR 9 590 402,53, incurred and declared in the context of the EAFRD in respect of measures 123A, 125A, 321 and 322 of the rural development programme for the period 2007-2013 and measures 4.2, 4.3, 7.2 and 7.4 of the rural development programme for the period 2014-2020, for the financial years 2011 to 2018, and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of an incorrect interpretation and application of Article 34(7) of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014, (2) since the financial corrections are unlawful because the Commission exceeded the limits of its power of assessment and is vitiated by inadequate reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of an incorrect interpretation and application of Article 34(7) of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014, (2) since the financial corrections are unlawful because the Commission exceeded the limits of its power of assessment and is vitiated by inadequate reasoning.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for the imposition of a correction in respect of expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the first inspection was notified, infringement of Article 52(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (3) and that the Commission went beyond its competence ratione temporis when imposing the contested financial corrections. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for the imposition of a correction in respect of expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the first inspection was notified, infringement of Article 52(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (3) and that the Commission went beyond its competence ratione temporis when imposing the contested financial corrections.

| 3. | Third plea in law, relating, in particular, to the correction imposed in respect of measures 125A and 123A, alleges breach of the principle of ne bis in idem, of legal certainty, sound administration, the legitimate expectations of Member States and proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, relating, in particular, to the correction imposed in respect of measures 125A and 123A, alleges breach of the principle of ne bis in idem, of legal certainty, sound administration, the legitimate expectations of Member States and proportionality.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law relates, in particular, to the correction for measure 125A, alleging infringement of Article 24(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, (4) Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 and the provisions of the national rural development programme which the Commission approved for the period 2007-2013, insufficient statement of reasons as regards the legal basis for the correction and the absence of a legal basis and a statement of reasons, and an error of fact as regards the flat-rate financial correction imposed and the rate thereof (10 %). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law relates, in particular, to the correction for measure 125A, alleging infringement of Article 24(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, (4) Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 and the provisions of the national rural development programme which the Commission approved for the period 2007-2013, insufficient statement of reasons as regards the legal basis for the correction and the absence of a legal basis and a statement of reasons, and an error of fact as regards the flat-rate financial correction imposed and the rate thereof (10 %).

| 5. | By the fifth plea in law, relating, inter alia, to the correction of measure 125A, it is claimed that the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, Article 34 of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 and Guidelines C(2015)3675 of 8 June 2015, the right to a prior hearing and the rights of the defence, as well as the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality. It is also claimed that the statement of reasons for the decision is insufficient and is vitiated by an error of fact. |
| --- | --- |

5.

By the fifth plea in law, relating, inter alia, to the correction of measure 125A, it is claimed that the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, Article 34 of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 and Guidelines C(2015)3675 of 8 June 2015, the right to a prior hearing and the rights of the defence, as well as the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality. It is also claimed that the statement of reasons for the decision is insufficient and is vitiated by an error of fact.

| 6. | The sixth plea in law relates, inter alia, to the correction imposed in respect of measures 321 and 322 and alleges infringement of Article 24(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and Guidelines C(2015)3675 of 8 June 2015, an error of fact, inadequate reasoning and infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth plea in law relates, inter alia, to the correction imposed in respect of measures 321 and 322 and alleges infringement of Article 24(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and Guidelines C(2015)3675 of 8 June 2015, an error of fact, inadequate reasoning and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

| 7. | The seventh plea relates, in particular, to the correction for measure 123A. By this plea, it is alleged that the correction in question was imposed in breach of Article 24(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 34 of Regulation No 908/2014, on the ground of an error of fact and on the basis of insufficient reasoning. In addition, it is claimed that the Hellenic Republic’s right to be heard and rights of defence and the principle of proportionality have been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The seventh plea relates, in particular, to the correction for measure 123A. By this plea, it is alleged that the correction in question was imposed in breach of Article 24(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 34 of Regulation No 908/2014, on the ground of an error of fact and on the basis of insufficient reasoning. In addition, it is claimed that the Hellenic Republic’s right to be heard and rights of defence and the principle of proportionality have been infringed.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/201 of 12 February 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2020) 541) (OJ 2020 L 42, p. 17).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(4)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).

---