EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/31

Action brought on 16 September 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-352/05)

(2005/C 296/67)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and S. Kharitaki)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul or amend the contested decision of the Commission of 20 July 2005 refusing the request for Community financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, notified under No C(2005) 2756 and published as Decision 2005/579/EC (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accounts under Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2), disallowed from Community financing various expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the public storage, fruit and vegetables, tobacco and livestock premiums sectors.

The applicant seeks annulment of that decision, maintaining in principle that the entire clearance of accounts procedure is invalid because Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3), in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (4), was infringed by reason of the fact that the consultation and bilateral contacts between the applicant and the Commission did not include the specific evaluation of the expenditure to be refused, while in addition the expenditure excluded was effected prior to the 24 months preceding the Commission's written communication. According to the applicant, the period of 24 months commences much later than the Commission considers.

As regards the correction in the public storage sector, the applicant considers that the Commission's corrections are based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Regulations Nos 1258/1999, 296/1996 (5) and 2040/2000 (6), misconstruing the guidelines in Commission document VI/5330/97/23.12.97, and were made on the basis of a mistaken assessment of the facts, with vague or insufficient reasoning, going beyond the bounds of the Commission's discretion and contravening the principle of proportionality.

As regards the correction in the potato-growing and vineyard sectors, the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment as regards the facts, citing insufficient and contradictory reasoning, and infringement of the principle of proportionality. It considers, moreover, that the correction imposed should be limited to 2 % and that the correction should not in any event include the Department of the Dodecanese, where there is a land registry and consequently in that department especially it cannot be considered that there is any difficulty as regards on-the-spot checks.

In the fruit and vegetables sector, the applicant considers that the Commission was wrong not to regard as justified the late payment in a case in which the Greek authorities investigated the compatibility of the payment in question under national and Community law. The applicant relies additionally on the same pleas as were set out above concerning the storage sector.

With regard to tobacco, the applicant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the Community provisions, error as to the facts, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the guidance in documents VI 5330/97 and AGRI 17933/2000 concerning the requirement to carry out cross-checks with the data of a fully-functioning integrated administration and control system provided for by Regulation No 2848/98 (7), the carrying out of on-the-spot checks, of payments by cheque and supplementary and other checks.

Lastly, as regards the correction in the livestock sector (goat and sheepmeat), the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment of the facts and considers that the reasons given are mistaken. It also claims that the imposition of a flat-rate correction of 10 % is unlawful, constitutes a misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidance in document AGRI/6145/2000 and is disproportionate to the gravity of the deficiencies.

(1) OJ L 199 of 29.07.2005, p. 84.

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ English Special Edition 1970(I), p 218.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103.

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of 08.07.1995, p. 6.

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2776/88, OJ 1996 L 39, p. 5.

(6) Council Regulation (EC) No 2040/2000 of 26 September 2000 on budgetary discipline, OJ 2000 L 244, p. 27.

(7) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector, OJ 1998 L 358, p. 17.