# C_2017249EN.01002102.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/21

---

Appeal brought on 6 June 2017 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2017 in Case T-112/15, Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-341/17 P)

(2017/C 249/33)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, A. Vasilopoulou and E. Leftheriotou)

Other party to proceedings: European Commission

Re:

The appellant asks the Court to uphold its claims that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 March 2017 in Case Τ-112/15 should be set aside in so far as that judgment dismissed its action, to uphold the action brought on 2 March 2015 by the Hellenic Republic, to annul the decision of the European Commission 2014/950/ΕU of 19 December 2014 in so far as that decision excludes from European Union financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of area aid for the claim year 2008 and which corresponds to: (a) 10 % of the whole amount of expenditure incurred for pasture-related aid, (b) 5 % of the whole amount of expenditure incurred for additional coupled aid and (c) 5 % of the whole amount of the expenditure incurred in respect of rural development, and to order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 6 grounds:

| A. | With respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which is concerned with the first plea in law relating to the 10 % financial correction in relation to area aid for pastures (paragraphs 23-106 of the judgment under appeal) three grounds of appeal are relied on.
  The first ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provision of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 on the definition of pasture, on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and on the insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal.
  The second ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU, and an insufficient statement of reasons, with respect to the ruling in the judgment under appeal, whereby the claims of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the lawfulness of the statement of reasons in the Commission decision were rejected.
  Further, by means of the third ground of appeal it is claimed that the judgment under appeal infringed the principle of proportionality in conjunction with misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and an insufficient statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

A.

With respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which is concerned with the first plea in law relating to the 10 % financial correction in relation to area aid for pastures (paragraphs 23-106 of the judgment under appeal) three grounds of appeal are relied on.

The first ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provision of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 on the definition of pasture, on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and on the insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal.

The second ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU, and an insufficient statement of reasons, with respect to the ruling in the judgment under appeal, whereby the claims of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the lawfulness of the statement of reasons in the Commission decision were rejected.

Further, by means of the third ground of appeal it is claimed that the judgment under appeal infringed the principle of proportionality in conjunction with misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and an insufficient statement of reasons.

| B. | With respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which concerns the second plea in law of the action in relation to the 5 % financial correction in the sector of additional coupled area aid (paragraphs 107-137 of the judgment under appeal), two grounds of appeal are relied on. The first (the fourth ground of appeal) is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31 of Regulation 1290/2005 and of Article 11 of Regulation 885/2006, and the erroneous, insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal, while, by the second of the two, it is claimed that the relevant ruling of the judgment under appeal depends on a misapplication of the principle of proportionality in conjunction with the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

B.

With respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which concerns the second plea in law of the action in relation to the 5 % financial correction in the sector of additional coupled area aid (paragraphs 107-137 of the judgment under appeal), two grounds of appeal are relied on. The first (the fourth ground of appeal) is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31 of Regulation 1290/2005 and of Article 11 of Regulation 885/2006, and the erroneous, insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal, while, by the second of the two, it is claimed that the relevant ruling of the judgment under appeal depends on a misapplication of the principle of proportionality in conjunction with the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons.

| C. | Last, with respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which concerns the third plea in law of the action in relation to the 5 % financial correction in the sector of rural development (paragraphs 138-168 of the judgment under appeal) it is claimed (the sixth ground of appeal) that the judgment under appeal, in so far as the claims of the Hellenic Republic were partly dismissed, is marked by a complete absence of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

C.

Last, with respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which concerns the third plea in law of the action in relation to the 5 % financial correction in the sector of rural development (paragraphs 138-168 of the judgment under appeal) it is claimed (the sixth ground of appeal) that the judgment under appeal, in so far as the claims of the Hellenic Republic were partly dismissed, is marked by a complete absence of reasons.

---