# C_2009244EN.01000302.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/3

---

Appeal brought on 10 August 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 11 June 2009 in Case T-33/07 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-321/09 P)

2009/C 244/05

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | uphold this appeal and the grounds of appeal put forward; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold this appeal and the grounds of appeal put forward;

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

| — | uphold the action in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action in part;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic submits:

| 1. | that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of legal certainty, given that, while holding in the judgment under appeal that the bilateral clearance procedure was undoubtedly particularly long — since it began on 9 November 1999 with the first investigation and was completed on 15 December 2006 when the contested decision was published — it considered, however, in the Hellenic Republic’s view mistakenly, that that finding should be qualified given the context of the FEOGA account clearance procedure and held that the principle of legal certainty was not infringed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of legal certainty, given that, while holding in the judgment under appeal that the bilateral clearance procedure was undoubtedly particularly long — since it began on 9 November 1999 with the first investigation and was completed on 15 December 2006 when the contested decision was published — it considered, however, in the Hellenic Republic’s view mistakenly, that that finding should be qualified given the context of the FEOGA account clearance procedure and held that the principle of legal certainty was not infringed;

| 2. | that the judgment under appeal delivered by the Court of First Instance contains incorrect and contradictory reasoning given that, although the Court accepted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1201/89 and that the plea for annulment put forward by the Hellenic Republic was well founded and had to be upheld, it held that the validity of the financial correction was neverthless not affected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

that the judgment under appeal delivered by the Court of First Instance contains incorrect and contradictory reasoning given that, although the Court accepted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1201/89 and that the plea for annulment put forward by the Hellenic Republic was well founded and had to be upheld, it held that the validity of the financial correction was neverthless not affected.

---