# C_2020161EN.01003901.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

---

Appeal brought on 26 February 2020 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-295/18, Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-107/20 P)

(2020/C 161/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the appeal should be upheld and that the judgment under appeal of 19 December 2019, in Case T-295/18, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic on 7 May 2018 for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/304 of 27 February 2018, should be set aside in so far as that Commission Implementing Decision excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in a total (gross) amount of EUR 17 869 131,75 (budgetary impact EUR 14 857 076,98) incurred and declared within the framework of the EAFRD concerning measures 125A, 321 and 322 (gross amount of EUR 15 631 043,52 and budgetary impact of EUR 12 618 988,75) and measure 123A (amount of EUR 2 238 088,23) as well as the amount of EUR 588 103,59 (expenditure) which was incurred under the EAGF following the control of transactions measure for the budgetary years 2011 — 2014.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises six grounds of appeal. The first five grounds of appeal concern the rejection of the pleas put forward for the annulment of the corrections imposed in respect of the expenses incurred within the framework of the EAFRD.

The first ground of appeal alleges an incorrect interpretation and application of Article 52(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1306/2013, distortion of the scope of application and of Annex A23 thereto, and poor and inadequate reasoning of the judgment under appeal.

In the second ground of appeal, it is submitted that the judgment under appeal should be set aside for failure to state reasons, an erroneous interpretation and application of the principle of ne bis in idem and failure by the General Court to rule on the complaints raised by the Hellenic Republic concerning infringement by the Commission of the principles of legal certainty, sound administration, the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality, in breach of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure.

The third ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by erroneous interpretation and application of Articles 71(2) and (3) and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 and Article 24(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, and by poor and inadequate reasoning in relation to the rejection of the third ground of appeal.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges erroneous interpretation and application of the combined provisions of Article 296 TFEU and Articles 36 and 40 of Implementing Regulation No 908/2014, as well as poor, inadequate and contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal with regard to the rejection of the complaint that the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and sound administration.

The fifth ground of appeal alleges that the General Court failed, in breach of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, to rule on the complaints by which the Hellenic Republic alleges breach of the principle of proportionality in relation to the financial correction imposed on it by the Commission in respect of measures 321, 322 and 123A.

The sixth ground of appeal, relating to the rejection of the pleas in law put forward for the annulment of the correction imposed in respect of expenditure incurred under the EAGF, alleges erroneous application of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, distortion of the content of the summary report and inadequate reasoning.

---