# C_2019072EN.01001001.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/10

---

Appeal brought on 17 December 2018 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2018 in Case T-272/16 Greece v Commission

(Case C-797/18 P)

(2019/C 72/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Κanellopoulos, Ε. Leftheriotou and Α. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that its appeal should be upheld; that the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union of 4 October 2018 in Case Τ-272/16 should be set aside to the extent that the General Court dismissed its action; that the action of the Hellenic Republic of 25 June 2016 should be upheld; that Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 (1) should be annulled, in so far as by means of that decision: (a) financial corrections amounting to EUR 166 797 866,22 are imposed for the claim years 2012-2013 in the decoupled direct aid sector, (b) an overall financial correction amounting to EUR 3 880 460,50 is imposed for the financial years 2010-2013 in the sector of Rural Development EAFRD, Axes 1 + 3 — Investment Oriented Measures 125 and 121 (2007-2013); and that the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal the appellant relies on six grounds of appeal:

| A. | With respect to the part of the judgment under appeal that deals with the first, second and third pleas in law of the action and concerns the correction imposed in the decoupled direct aid sector there are three grounds of appeal.
  The first ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 796/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004 on the definition of pasture and on the insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal.
  The second ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation of the Guidelines (Document VI/5330/97) with respect to whether the conditions for the imposition of a 25 % financial correction are met, misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 43, 44 and 137 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (3) insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons, and distortion of the sense of the Conciliation Body’s summary report.
  Further, by the third ground of appeal the appellant challenges the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (4) and the related Guidelines, the ne bis in idem principle, the principle of proportionality, and an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

A.

With respect to the part of the judgment under appeal that deals with the first, second and third pleas in law of the action and concerns the correction imposed in the decoupled direct aid sector there are three grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 796/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004 on the definition of pasture and on the insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal.

The second ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation of the Guidelines (Document VI/5330/97) with respect to whether the conditions for the imposition of a 25 % financial correction are met, misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 43, 44 and 137 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (3) insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons, and distortion of the sense of the Conciliation Body’s summary report.

Further, by the third ground of appeal the appellant challenges the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (4) and the related Guidelines, the ne bis in idem principle, the principle of proportionality, and an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons.

| B. | With respect to the part of the judgment under appeal that deals with the fourth and fifth pleas in law of the action in relation to the correction which was imposed in the sector of Measure 125 of the Rural Development Programme, there are two grounds of appeal. The first (the fourth ground of appeal) is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 71(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1698/2005, (5) and the insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal, while by the second (the fifth ground of appeal), the judgment under appeal is claimed to have erroneously interpreted and applied Article 31(4) of Regulation (ΕC) No 1290/2005, and further, is criticised as having an insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

B.

With respect to the part of the judgment under appeal that deals with the fourth and fifth pleas in law of the action in relation to the correction which was imposed in the sector of Measure 125 of the Rural Development Programme, there are two grounds of appeal. The first (the fourth ground of appeal) is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 71(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1698/2005, (5) and the insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal, while by the second (the fifth ground of appeal), the judgment under appeal is claimed to have erroneously interpreted and applied Article 31(4) of Regulation (ΕC) No 1290/2005, and further, is criticised as having an insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons.

| C. | Last, with respect to the part of the judgment under appeal that rejects the sixth and seventh pleas in law of the action in relation to the correction which was imposed in the sector of Measure 121 of the Rural Development Programme, it is claimed by the sixth ground of appeal, in its two limbs, that there was an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 73 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004, (6) an insufficient statement of reasons and distortion of the sense of the evidence. |
| --- | --- |

C.

Last, with respect to the part of the judgment under appeal that rejects the sixth and seventh pleas in law of the action in relation to the correction which was imposed in the sector of Measure 121 of the Rural Development Programme, it is claimed by the sixth ground of appeal, in its two limbs, that there was an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 73 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004, (6) an insufficient statement of reasons and distortion of the sense of the evidence.

---

(1)  
  OJ 2016, L 75, p. 16
  .

(2)  
  OJ 2004, L 141, p 18.

(3)  
  OJ 2009, L 30, p. 16.

(4)  
  OJ 2005, L 209, p. 1.

(5)  
  OJ 2005, L 277, p. 1.

(6)  
  OJ 2004, L 153, p. 31.

---