# C_2022266EN.01003002.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/30

---

Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-211/22)

(2022/C 266/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Leftheriotou, A.-E. Vasilopoulou and K. Konsta, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision (1) in so far as it imposes financial corrections on the Hellenic Republic, amounting to a gross amount of EUR 43 525 011,74 and a net amount, after deductions, of EUR 43 156 228,16, following enquiry XC/2018/001/GR on the application of cross-compliance in claim years 2016/2017 (financial years 2016 and 2017, pages 72 to 124 of the summary report); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision (1) in so far as it imposes financial corrections on the Hellenic Republic, amounting to a gross amount of EUR 43 525 011,74 and a net amount, after deductions, of EUR 43 156 228,16, following enquiry XC/2018/001/GR on the application of cross-compliance in claim years 2016/2017 (financial years 2016 and 2017, pages 72 to 124 of the summary report);

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and limit the rate of correction imposed by that decision to 5 %; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and limit the rate of correction imposed by that decision to 5 %; and

| — | in any event, reduce the amount of the net financial correction imposed that decision by EUR 12 225 532,12; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, reduce the amount of the net financial correction imposed that decision by EUR 12 225 532,12;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. The first four pleas relate to the findings on which the Commission has based the contested decision, while the fifth and sixth pleas concern the calculation of the correction at issue.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for making the Commission’s findings part of the key controls and, furthermore, infringement of the principle of legal certainty, and failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for making the Commission’s findings part of the key controls and, furthermore, infringement of the principle of legal certainty, and failure to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the first part, that the Commission service imposing the corrections lacks substantive competence and, in the second part, infringement of the principle of proportionality in that corrections are imposed on the basis of findings which in no way lead to penalties being imposed on beneficiaries of aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the first part, that the Commission service imposing the corrections lacks substantive competence and, in the second part, infringement of the principle of proportionality in that corrections are imposed on the basis of findings which in no way lead to penalties being imposed on beneficiaries of aid.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of the rules of EU law and an error of fact on the part of the Commission in making its other findings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of the rules of EU law and an error of fact on the part of the Commission in making its other findings.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, which relates to the Commission’s findings concerning the key control ‘Reporting of audit findings’, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principles of sincere cooperation and legal certainty (first part), and alleging factual errors in the conclusions drawn by the Commission (second part). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, which relates to the Commission’s findings concerning the key control ‘Reporting of audit findings’, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principles of sincere cooperation and legal certainty (first part), and alleging factual errors in the conclusions drawn by the Commission (second part).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made corrections by way of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 12(6) and (7) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 (OJ L 255, p. 18) (first part of the plea), as well as infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 34(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (OJ L 255, p. 59) and breach of the principle of the obligation not to exacerbate objections sent to the Member State during the clearance-of-accounts procedure (second part). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made corrections by way of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 12(6) and (7) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 (OJ L 255, p. 18) (first part of the plea), as well as infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 34(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (OJ L 255, p. 59) and breach of the principle of the obligation not to exacerbate objections sent to the Member State during the clearance-of-accounts procedure (second part).

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness in the calculation of the net financial correction at issue and a failure to apply deductions, as a result of the earlier application of financial corrections to the same expenditure as that subject to the financial correction at issue, in breach of the Commission’s guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness in the calculation of the net financial correction at issue and a failure to apply deductions, as a result of the earlier application of financial corrections to the same expenditure as that subject to the financial correction at issue, in breach of the Commission’s guidelines.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/222 of 16 February 2022 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(2022) 830) (OJ 2022 L 37, p. 63).

---