EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/27

Action brought on 6 February 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-46/09)

2009/C 90/44

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, I. Khalkias and S. Kharitaki, State Legal Advisers, and S. Papaioannou, Legal Representative in the State Legal Service)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul or alter the contested decision as more specifically set out in the application and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action challenges Commission Decision C(2008) 7820 final of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), notified to the applicant under reference number SG-Greffe (2008) D 207864/09-12-2008.

The applicant puts forward 12 pleas in support of its claim for annulment.

More specifically, in the citrus sector, the applicant submits under the first plea for annulment that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied, with regard to the amount of the proposed correction, Commission documents AGRI VI 5330/97, AGRI 61495/2002/REV I and AGRI/60637/2006 (Calculation of financial consequences when clearing EAGGF accounts — Guidelines — Repeated shortcomings — Recurrence), since there was not a lack of basic controls, nor repeated shortcomings in the citrus aid regime, while the applicant submits in the second plea for annulment that the Commission appraised the factual circumstances incorrectly and imposed a disproportionate financial correction since the administrative and financial controls were effected and payment in cash related to just one instance.

In the field of cotton aid, under the third plea for annulment the applicant puts forward five more specific submissions: (a) the correction was, in its view, arbitrary and disproportionate because account was not taken of the improvement in the system and the belated change to the cotton aid regime in 2001; (b) the correction had to be different each year, given that the state of the control system was not the same in both periods; (c) the compatibility of the cotton aid regime with the integrated administration and control system (IACS) was ensured; (d) the environmental measures were checked at an appropriate time; and (e) the on-the-spot checks of the areas (5%) were carried out in a timely and effective manner.

So far as concerns bovine premiums, the applicant asserts under the fourth plea for annulment that the contested decision is vitiated because it was adopted beyond the reasonable period within which the clearance procedure should be completed, and it should be annulled on the basis that it was adopted by an organ which lacked competence ratione temporis and/or that it was adopted in abuse of the Commission’s right in that regard and/or that it infringes the legal certainty enjoyed by the Member States.

In the fifth plea for annulment, it is submitted in the alternative that the Commission’s decision should be annulled because, in imposing the corrections, it goes back to a time preceding the common conciliation letter or, in the alternative, the last letter of observations.

In the sixth plea for annulment, regarding, more specifically, the reasons for imposition of corrections, the applicant pleads misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1258/99 (1) and the guidelines, misappraisal of the factual circumstances and evidence or, in the alternative, error as to the facts, and a lack of reasoning.

In the field of olive-oil aid, the applicant submits under the seventh plea for annulment that the contested decision is vitiated because it was adopted beyond the reasonable period within which the clearance procedure should be completed, and it should be annulled on the basis that it was adopted by an organ which lacked competence ratione temporis and/or that it was adopted in abuse of the Commission’s right in that regard and/or that it infringes the legal certainty enjoyed by the Member States.

In the eighth plea for annulment, it is submitted in the alternative that, in imposing the corrections, the contested decision unlawfully goes back to a time preceding the common conciliation letter or, in the alternative, the last letter of observations.

In the ninth plea for annulment, regarding, more specifically, the reasons for imposition of a correction, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled for misinterpretation of Regulations (EC) Nos 1258/99 and 1663/95, (2) of the guidelines VI 5330/97 and AGRI 61495/2002, and of the provisions that concern more specifically the regime at issue (Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84, (3) Articles 27 and 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 2366/98 (4) and Articles 2 and 2a of Regulation (EC) No 1638/98), (5) for error as to the facts, for misappraisal of the factual circumstances, for lack of reasoning and for breach of the principle of proportionality.

Finally, with regard to the exceeding of the financial limits for corrections/late payments, it is submitted in the tenth plea for annulment that, in so far as the contested decision concerns investigation FA/2005/70, it should be annulled for breach of rules governing the procedure for clearance of accounts and of Regulation (EC) No 817/2004, (6) for lack of reasoning and for breach of the principle of proportionality.

In the eleventh plea for annulment, the applicant submits that the contested decision should also be annulled in respect of the section concerning accounting investigation FA/2006/108 for breach of the rules governing the clearance procedure, misapplication of Regulation (EC) No 296/96, (7) misappraisal of the facts, lack of reasoning and breach of the principle of proportionality, while, finally, the twelfth plea for annulment contests on the basis of insufficient reasoning the section of the contested decision concerning investigation FA/2006/137.

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

(2) 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 1995 L 158, p. 6).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2261/84 of 17 July 1984 laying down general rules on the granting of aid for the production of olive oil and of aid to olive oil producer organisations (OJ 1984 L 208, p. 3).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 marketing years (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 50).

(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 32).

(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 31).

(7) 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).