Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:95
Date: 2020-02-13
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Appeal - successful
Origin: Greece

summary report annexed to the decision at issue, which are also to be found in paragraphs 16 to 34 of the judgment under appeal. The proceedings before the General Court and the judgment under appeal 34 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 29 August 2015, the Hellenic Republic brought an action for annulment of the decision at issue, relying, in essence, on six pleas in law. 35 The first two pleas concerned the 25% correction imposed for weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pasture, the first being based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004 and of Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009, and the second being based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Commission Document VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997, entitled ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee’ (‘Document VI/5330/97’), with respect to whether the conditions for the imposition of a financial correction of 25% were met, on a failure to state reasons, on the fact that the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion and on a simultaneous breach of the principle of proportionality. 36 The third plea alleged that Document VI/5330/97 had been misinterpreted and misapplied with respect to the imposition of a financial correction of 5%, that the Commission had exceeded the limits of its discretion and that the principle of proportionality had been infringed. 37 The fourth plea alleged that Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1122/2009 and Article 27 of Regulation No 796/2004 had been misinterpreted and misapplied and that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations had been infringed. 38 The fifth and sixth pleas concerned the cross-compliance system, the fifth plea alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, an insufficient statement of reasons and an error of assessment with respect to the flat-rate correction of 2% for claim year 2011, and the sixth plea alleging infringement of Articles 266 and 280 TFEU in relation to the Commission’s duty to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 6 November 2014, Greece v Commission (T‑632/11, not published, EU:T:2014:934), and a failure to state reasons with respect to the absence of reimbursement of the sum of EUR 10 460 620.42 to the Hellenic Republic following that judgment. 39 By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action. Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal 40 The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should: – set aside the judgment under appeal; – annul the decision at issue; and – order the Commission to pay the costs. 41 The Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal as unfounded. It also seeks an order for costs against the Hellenic Republic. 42 The Kingdom of Spain claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal and order the Commission to pay the costs. The appeal 43 The Hellenic Republic puts forward five grounds of appeal. The first two grounds of appeal relate to the financial correction of 25% applied to area-related aid for pasture. The third ground of appeal concerns a financial correction of 5% applied for weaknesses in the Land Parcel Identification System for claim year 2009. The fourth ground of appeal relates to a financial correction of 2% due to the ineffectiveness of the risk analysis in respect of claim year 2010. The fifth ground of appeal concerns the financial correction of 2% for claim year 2011 in connection with cross-compliance. The first ground of appeal Arguments of the parties 44 By the first ground of appeal, the Hellenic Republic complains, in essence, that in paragraphs 49 to 84 of the judgment under appeal the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004 and Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009, which set out the definition of ‘permanent pasture’, and that it failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, under Article 296 TFEU. 45 The Hellenic Republic contends that, in paragraphs 55, 56, 68 and 74 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court adopted an incorrect criterion relating to the type of vegetation covering the areas taken into consideration by the Commission for the purpose of determining whether those areas did constitute ‘permanent pasture’ within the meaning of EU law. It states that according to the General Court an area can be classified as ‘permanent pasture’ only if it is covered with grasses or other herbaceous forage, and not if it is covered with scrub and ligneous vegetation, which are characteristic of ‘Mediterranean-type’ pasture. However, according to the Hellenic Republic, the General Court should have adopted another criterion, under which land that forms part of established local practices, traditionally used for grazing, where grasses and herbaceous forage are not predominant constitutes ‘permanent pasture’. Thus, the predominance of ligneous vegetation in the areas in question cannot indicate the abandonment of agricultural activity. 46 According to the Hellenic Republic, that interpretation is permitted by the wording of Article 2 of Regulation No 796/2004 and by that regulation’s context and objectives. It thus states that that broad interpretation of the concept of ‘permanent pasture’ results both from Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation No 1307/2013 and from the guide intended to provide Member States with guidance on how best to comply with the legal provisions in force relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP), published by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission on 2 April 2008, as well as from the action plan drawn up in October 2012 by the Greek authorities in collaboration with the Commission, which included an assessment of the eligibility of pasture via photo-interpretation of satellite images at reference parcel (unit) level and the application of a pro-rata calculation system in cases where shrubs are scattered about (‘the 2012 Action Plan’). 47 In support of that line of argument, the Kingdom of Spain submits, in essence, that the General Court erred in law by holding that the relevant criterion was the type of vegetation present on the area in question and then conducting its examination in the light of that criterion. According to the Kingdom of Spain, the appropriate criterion is founded not on the type of vegetation present on the area in question, but on the actual agricultural use of that area. 48 The Commission proposes that this ground of appeal should be dismissed as unfounded. It is of the opinion that the General Court correctly interpreted and applied the concept of ‘permanent pasture’ defined in Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004 and Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009. It is clear from that definition that the criterion relating to the nature of the vegetation covering the agricultural area concerned is decisive. Furthermore, the guidance referred to in paragraph 46 of the present judgment, the 2012 Action Plan and Regulation No 1307/2013, which is applicable from 1 January 2015 and contains an extended definition of the concept of ‘permanent pasture’, are not relevant for the purpose of interpreting the law applicable at the material time and assessing the financial correction decided upon by the Commission. Findings of the Court 49 By its first ground of appeal, the Hellenic Republic alleges, in essence, that the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘permanent pasture’, within the meaning of Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004 and Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009, by finding, in paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal, that only areas covered with grasses or herbaceous forage fall within that concept, and not areas covered by ligneous plants or shrubs, which are characteristic of ‘Mediterranean-type’ pasture. According to the Hellenic Republic, the criterion relating to the nature of the vegetation covering the agricultural area concerned is not decisive in respect of the classification of ‘permanent pasture’. 50 In that regard, it should be noted, first, that Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009 defines the concept of ‘permanent pasture’ in terms very similar to those used in Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004. Secondly, it is apparent from the judgment of 15 May 2019, Greece v Commission (C‑341/17 P, EU:C:2019:409), in which the Court interpreted the concept of ‘permanent pasture’ set out in Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004, that the decisive criterion in respect of the definition of ‘permanent pasture’ is not the type of vegetation covering the agricultural area, but the actual use of that area for an agricultural activity that is typical for ‘permanent pasture’. Consequently, the presence of ligneous plants or of shrubs cannot, in itself, prevent classification of an area as ‘permanent pasture’, as long as their presence does not compromise the actual use of that area for an agricultural activity (judgment of 15 May 2019, Greece v Commission, C‑341/17 P, EU:C:2019:409, paragraph 54). 51 Accordingly, by holding in paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal that the relevant criterion was the type of vegetation present on the area in question and by then conducting its examination in the light of that criterion, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the concept of ‘permanent pasture’ as resulting from Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004 and Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009. It follows that the General Court’s finding, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, that the Hellenic Republic had failed to demonstrate that the Commission’s assessments were incorrect is erroneous. 52 Consequently, the Hellenic Republic’s first ground of appeal must be upheld. It follows that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal must be set aside, in so far as the General Court dismissed the Hellenic Republic’s action regarding the flat-rate correction of 25% imposed by the decision at issue for claim years 2009 to 2011, in respect of weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pasture. The second ground of appeal 53 By its second ground of appeal, the Hellenic Republic submits, in essence, that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Document VI/5330/97 with respect to whether the four conditions for the imposition of a correction rate of 25% were met. 54 Since this ground of appeal concerns the 25% correction imposed for weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pasture and, as is apparent from paragraph 52 of the present judgment, point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal must be set aside, there is no need to examine this ground of appeal, which cannot result in the judgment under appeal being set aside to any greater extent. The third ground of appeal Arguments of the parties 55 Notwithstanding its lack of structure, the third ground of appeal may be understood as being divided into two parts. 56 By the first part, the Hellenic Republic submits, in essence, that the General Court infringed the principles of legality and good administration and the rights of defence, as well as the principle of proportionality, in paragraphs 141 to 162 of the judgment under appeal, in disregarding its argument that the change in status of areas from non-eligible to eligible in respect of claim year 2009 had been subject to checks, so that change in status had not generated any risk for the EAGF. 57 By the second part, the Hellenic Republic submits, in essence, that, as regards the plea which it raised in support of its action before the General Court alleging that the Commission wrongly claimed that it had committed manifest errors in the amendments of the claims for 2009, the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons and the principle of proportionality. The Hellenic Republic states that, in paragraphs 158 to 162 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court wrongly confirmed the Commission’s assessment, which extrapolated the risk of loss for the EAGF on the basis of isolated cases. 58 The Commission contends that this ground of appeal should be dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded. Findings of the Court 59 As regards the first part of the third ground of appeal, it should be borne in mind that it follows from the Court’s settled case-law that, under Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal lies on points of law only. The General Court thus has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence does not, therefore, save where they have been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal (judgment of 28 November 2019, LS Cable & System v Commission, C‑596/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:1025, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). 60 In the present case, on the pretext of supposed infringements of the principles of legality and good administration and of the rights of defence, the Hellenic Republic is in fact merely disputing the factual appraisal carried out by the General Court, in particular in paragraph 149 of the judgment under appeal, concerning the irregularities in the checks carried out where the status of areas changed from non-eligible to eligible in respect of claim year 2009. 61 Moreover, in so far as the Hellenic Republic complains that the General Court infringed the principle of proportionality since it did not take into account the figures which it submitted, such a complaint concerns the General Court’s assessment of the accuracy of the data and thus relates to a factual appraisal. 62 The first part of the third ground of appeal must therefore be rejected and dismissed as inadmissible. 63 As regards the second part of this ground of appeal, it should be observed, as a preliminary point, that although the Hellenic Republic refers to paragraphs 158 to 162 of the judgment under appeal, its complaints alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and an inadequate statement of reasons essentially concern only paragraph 159 of that judgment. 64 In that regard, it should be noted first of all that, in paragraphs 149 to 151 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the irregularities identified by the Commission as regards the status of the areas in the Land Parcel Identification System and the treatment of the errors relating thereto had to be classified as weaknesses in key controls, in accordance with Annex 2 to Document VI/5330/97. 65 Secondly, in paragraphs 152, 153 and 156 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held, in accordance with Document VI/5330/97, that the application of a flat-rate correction of 5% was justified in the light of the irregularities identified and the evidence submitted for its consideration. 66 In the context of paragraph 159 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court merely pointed out that the weaknesses identified by the Commission and mentioned in paragraphs 146 to 149 of the judgment under appeal could justify the suspicion of more extensive irregularities, and gave the Commission reason to question the quality of key controls. Furthermore, in paragraph 159, the General Court also noted that the Hellenic Republic had not provided any evidence to refute the Commission’s findings. In doing so, in paragraph 159, the General Court was merely applying the established rules on the burden of proof in the area concerned ‐ which it recalled, moreover, in paragraphs 143 to 145 of the judgment under appeal ‐ according to which the burden of proof borne by the Commission is limited to its being able to provide evidence supporting the serious and reasonable doubt on its part regarding the inadequacy of the checks carried out by national authorities or the irregularity of the figures submitted by them, while it is for the Member State concerned to demonstrate that the Commission’s findings are incorrect, or that there is no risk of loss or irregularity for the EAGF on the basis of the application of a reliable and effective system of checks. 67 It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to what the Hellenic Republic asserts, first, the General Court did not infringe the principle of proportionality and, secondly, it stated proper and sufficient reasons for the judgment under appeal. 68 Consequently, the second part of the third ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded. 69 It follows that the third ground of appeal must be dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded. The fourth ground of appeal Arguments of the parties 70 By its fourth ground of appeal, the Hellenic Republic criticises the General Court for having dismissed, in paragraphs 163 to 183 of the judgment under appeal, its plea concerning the ineffectiveness of the risk analysis for claim year 2010. More specifically, the Hellenic Republic alleges that the General Court infringed its right of access to a court due to its excessive formalism. Indeed, in paragraph 181 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the Hellenic Republic had not substantiated its argument relating to infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, on the ground that it had merely argued that its method for randomly selecting control samples complied with technical specifications established in a Commission document, published in 2010, without however indicating which part of those specifications it complied with, and without supporting its argument in such a way as to enable the General Court to exercise its power of review. The Hellenic Republic submits that, by refusing to take those technical specifications into account, the General Court disproportionately interfered with its right of access to a court. 71 The Commission contends that this ground of appeal should be dismissed. Findings of the Court 72 In paragraph 181 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found, in essence, that, in support of its argument, the Hellenic Republic had submitted only a document from a national body, which made reference to technical specifications established not for 2010, but for 2012. The General Court concluded that, since the Hellenic Republic did not enable it to verify that the technical specifications established by the Commission for 2010 were the same as those established for 2012, and did not indicate which part of those specifications it had complied with, that argument was not supported in such a way as to enable the General Court to exercise its power of review. On that basis, the General Court therefore rejected the argument. 73 Therefore, such an assessment by the General Court, based on the fact that the party relying on the content of a document fails, however, to produce that document before the General Court and thus prevents the General Court from verifying its content, reflects not ‘excessive formalism’ on the part of the General Court, but proper administration of justice. Accordingly, it cannot be validly argued that the approach adopted by General Court impaired the very essence of the right to effective judicial protection of the party whose plea was rejected on that ground. 74 Consequently, this ground of appeal must be dismissed as unfounded. The fifth ground of appeal Arguments of the parties 75 By this ground of appeal, the Hellenic Republic criticises the General Court for having held, in paragraphs 184 to 198 of the judgment under appeal, that the first communication of 24 November 2011, referred to in paragraph 24 of the present judgment, complied with the requirements resulting from Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 and that, therefore, that communication fulfilled its warning function, in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005. 76 More specifically, the Hellenic Republic submits, in essence, that the inquiry relating to the cross-compliance system concerned only claim years 2009 and 2010, so that the first communication of 24 November 2011 could not also apply to claim year 2011. Indeed, on the date of that communication, it was impossible for the Hellenic Republic to rectify the irregularities identified by the Commission and to avoid the imposition of an additional correction for claim year 2011. By failing to draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that it was impossible for the Hellenic Republic to take corrective measures for claim year 2011, the General Court infringed Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, as well as Articles 11(2) and 53(6) of Regulation No 1122/2009. In any event, the judgment under appeal is not sufficiently reasoned. 77 The Commission contends that this ground of appeal should be dismissed as unfounded. Findings of the Court 78 First of all, it should be noted that the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) finances, in a context of shared management between the Member States and the European Union, expenditure incurred in accordance with EU law. In the context of that shared management, the Commission is responsible for carrying out the conformity clearance procedure in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005. In that regard, Article 31(4)(a) of that regulation provides that financing may not be refused for expenditure which is incurred more than 24 months before the Commission notifies the Member State in writing of its inspection findings. 79 It is also apparent from the Court’s settled case-law that the final and conclusive decision on the clearance of accounts must be taken at the conclusion of a specific procedure giving effect to the audi alteram partem rule, during which the Member State concerned must be provided with all the guarantees necessary for it to present its point of view (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 January 1998, Greece v Commission, C‑61/95, EU:C:1998:27, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). 80 In that context, Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 delineates the conformity clearance procedure by establishing the various stages of the procedure and laying down the procedural safeguards that enable the Member State concerned to present its point of view. Accordingly, first, under the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006, when, as a result of any inquiry, the Commission considers that expenditure was not effected in compliance with EU law, it must communicate its conclusions to the Member State concerned and indicate the corrective measures needed to ensure future compliance with those rules. 81 In that regard, it is apparent from the Court’s settled case-law that, where irregularities justifying the application of a financial correction persist after the date of the written communication of the results of the checks, the Commission is entitled and even obliged to take account of that situation when it determines the period to which the financial correction in question is to relate (judgment of 9 January 2003, Greece v Commission, C‑157/00, EU:C:2003:5, paragraph 45). 82 Moreover, as the Court has also consistently held, the written communication referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006 must inform the Member State concerned fully about the Commission’s reservations, so that it can fulfil the warning function given to it by that provision. It follows that that provision requires that the irregularity which the Member State concerned is alleged to have committed should be stated with sufficient precision in the written communication, with the result that the Member State is fully informed of it (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 May 2012, Spain v Commission, C‑24/11 P, EU:C:2012:266, paragraphs 27 and 28 and the case-law cited). 83 Secondly, it is to be noted that the second subparagraph of Article 11(3) of Regulation No 885/2006 obliges the Commission, after any conciliation procedure has been held, to exclude from EU financing, under Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, expenditure that is not compliant with EU law ‘until the Member State has effectively implemented the corrective measures’. 84 It follows from reading the abovementioned provisions together that, first, the conformity clearance procedure establishes a dialogue between the Commission and the Member State concerned and is intended, in essence, (i) to enable them to exchange information, (ii) to offer the Member State an opportunity to exercise its rights of defence, (iii) to enable the Member State to demonstrate that the Commission’s findings are inaccurate and, finally, (iv) to enable the Member State to inform the Commission of the corrective measures implemented to ensure compliance with EU rules. 85 Secondly, the fact that the Member State concerned is not in a position to rectify the irregularities identified by the Commission in the written communication referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006 is irrelevant if those irregularities fell within the period covered by the Commission’s investigation. Indeed, taking the opposite view would render Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 nugatory, as that would allow a Member State to claim that it was in practical terms impossible to implement corrective measures before the adoption of the decision imposing the financial correction in order to be able to avoid the imposition of that flat-rate correction. 86 In the present instance, in paragraph 193 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court pointed out first of all that, in the first communication of 24 November 2011, the Commission had stated that the inquiry related to claim years from 2009 onwards. Therefore, the General Court, in the exercise of its power to assess the facts and evidence, considered that claim year 2011 was included in the period covered by the Commission’s investigation. 87 Next, in paragraphs 194 and 195 of the judgment under appeal, contrary to what is asserted by the Hellenic Republic, it was after an exhaustive assessment of the content of the first communication of 24 November 2011 and its annex that the General Court found that the Commission had identified shortcomings relating to cross-compliance for claim years 2009 to 2011, so that it could properly hold that the Commission had identified with sufficient precision the claim years concerned and that the Hellenic Republic had been given the opportunity to exercise its right of defence in response to the irregularities identified for claim year 2011. 88 Consequently, in deciding, in paragraph 199 of the judgment under appeal, that the first communication of 24 November 2011 complied with the requirements resulting from Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 and fulfilled its warning function in the light of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, the General Court did not err in law or fail to fulfil its obligation to state reasons. 89 The fifth ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as unfounded. 90 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that, as the first ground of appeal has been upheld, it is necessary to set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court dismissed the Hellenic Republic’s action regarding the flat-rate correction of 25% imposed for weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pasture and to dismiss the appeal as to the remainder. The action before the General Court 91 In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court may, after setting aside a decision of the General Court, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment or, where the state of the proceedings so permits, itself give final judgment in the matter. 92 In this instance, the Court should give final judgment in the case, as the state of the proceedings so permits. 93 As is clear from paragraph 50 of the present judgment, for the purpose of determining whether the area concerned must be classified as ‘permanent pasture’, within the meaning of Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004 and Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009, the decisive criterion to take into consideration is not the type of vegetation covering that area, but the actual use of the area for an agricultural activity that is typical for ‘permanent pasture’. 94 As regards area-related aid for claim years 2009 to 2011, in its summary report annexed to the decision at issue the Commission justified the application of a flat-rate correction of 25% in the light of a set of irregularities relating to the definition and checking of permanent pasture, which, taken as a whole, enabled it to conclude that the implementation of the control system which was to guarantee the accuracy of expenditure was seriously inadequate and had probably caused extremely high losses for the EAGF. 95 Since, first, the flat-rate correction of 25% was imposed on the basis of a set of irregularities one of which was, however, founded on a misinterpretation of Article 2, first paragraph, point 2, of Regulation No 796/2004 and of Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009, and, secondly, that misinterpretation could have affected the Commission’s assessment of the other weaknesses which it identified, it is necessary, in this context, to carry out a new overall assessment in order to verify that that correction rate remains justified. 96 It follows that the first plea in the Hellenic Republic’s action before the General Court should be upheld and, consequently, that the decision at issue should be annulled in so far as it imposes a flat-rate financial correction of 25% for area-related aid for claim years 2009 to 2011 in respect of weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pasture. Costs 97 Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is well founded and the Court itself gives final judgment in the case, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs. 98 Under Article 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the parties are to bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. 99 Since the Hellenic Republic and the Commission have both succeeded on some and failed on other heads, they must bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal. 100 Pursuant to Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. 101 The Kingdom of Spain, as an intervener in the appeal, must bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby: 1. Sets aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 February 2018, Greece v Commission (T‑506/15, not published, EU:T:2018:53) in so far as, first, the General Court dismissed the Hellenic Republic’s action regarding the flat-rate correction of 25% imposed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 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), for claim years 2009 to 2011, in respect of weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pasture, and secondly, it made a decision as to costs; 2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; 3. Annuls Implementing Decision 2015/1119 in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a flat-rate financial correction of 25% applied to area-related aid for claim years 2009 to 2011, in respect of weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pasture; 4. Orders the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal; 5. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs at first instance and on appeal. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Greek.