Case T-344/05: Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2005-09-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing arrangements, European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), closing of accounts

C 281/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.11.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant
first of all worked in the Commission as a
seconded national expert from 1 May 1998 to 30 April 2001,
then as a member of the temporary staff under a contract
which expired on 30 April 2004.

From October 2003 the applicant took steps to obtain a new
contract as a member of the temporary staff with effect from 1
May 2004. She claims that she was offered a post in the Inves-
tigatory and Disciplinary Office but that finally she was not
recruited by reason of fault on the part of the Commission's
staff. She alleges that DG ADMIN refused to recruit her on the
basis that she had already served the maximum period of six
years. According to the applicant that interpretation is erro-
neous as her first three years in the Commission as a seconded
national expert should not have been taken into account. She
submits that the administration finally admitted its error but, in
the meantime, the post which had been offered to her had
already disappeared as a result of restructuring.

the applicant seeks compensation for

By her action,
the
damage she allegedly suffered. She alleges a breach of the
legal certainty,
general principles of
good faith,
‘patere
legem quam ipse fecisti legem’, sound administration, the right
to be heard, the duty to have regard to the interests of the offi-
cial and the interests of the service.

the duty to state reasons,

legitimate expectations,

transparency,

Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Hellenic
Republic v Commission

(Case T-344/05)

(2005/C 281/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ioannis Khalkias,
Eleni Svolopoulou)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

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

— annul or amend the contested decision of the Commission
of 15 July 2005 refusing the request for Community finan-
cing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under
the European Agricultural and Guidance Fund
(EAGGF), Guarantee Section; (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) excluded from
Community financing various expenditure incurred by the
Hellenic Republic in the animal premia — extensification, fruit
and vegetables and arable crops 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
than the Commission
considers.

commences much later

As regards the correction of 100 % in respect of the premium
for extensification,
the applicant disputes the Commission's
assessment of the factual circumstances and claims that it erred
as to the facts and gave an inadequate statement of reasons for
the contested decision. The applicant considers, moreover, that
the imposition of a correction at the rate of 100 % contravenes
the guidelines in Commission document VI/5330/97/23.12.97,
is unjustified and clearly disproportionate, and goes beyond the
bounds of proper use of the Commission's discretion.

As regards the correction in the arable crops sector, the appli-
cant disputes the Commission's finding that there was an infrin-
gement of Regulation No 3508/1992, (5) in connection with
the identification of agricultural parcels. It also considers that it
complied fully with the conditions in Article 15 of Regulation
No 2419/2001 (6) as regards administrative and on-the-spot
checks. In addition, it cites lack of reasoning and infringement
of the principle of proportionality.

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/31

Lastly, in connection with the correction in the fruit and vege-
tables sector, the applicant considers that the Commission has
misinterpreted Article 20(5)
and (7) of Regulation No
1169/1997. (7) In any event, the applicant disputes the reasons
given in the contested decision with regard to that chapter and
alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.

definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium
nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No
132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
inter alia,
imports of ammonium nitrate originating in,
Ukraine, insofar as

(1) OJ L 188 of 20.7.2005, p. 36.
(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
the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of

financing 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
the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of
accounts of
08.07.1995, p. 6.

(5) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 estab-
lishing an integrated administration and control system for certain
Community aid schemes, OJ L 355 of 05.12.1992, p. 1.

(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes established
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, OJ L 327 of 12.12.2001,
p. 11.

(7) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 of 26 June 1997 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of
certain citrus fruits, OJ L 169 of 27.06.1997, p. 15.

Action brought on 14 September 2005 — JSC Kirovo-
Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat/Council

(Case T-348/05)

(2005/C 281/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat
Applicant(s):
(Kirovo Cheptesk, Russia) [represented by: B. Servais, Y. Melin,
lawyers]

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 (1) of 21 June
2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a

— it extends

the existing anti-dumping measures

to
products other than the product under investigation in
breach of Article 1(1), Article 1(2), Article 3(2), Article
4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation; and

— it was adopted in breach of the applicant's right of
defence and procedural rights in that (i) the applicant
was not granted the hearing it had requested under
Article 6(5) of the basic Regulation and (ii) the Commis-
sion did not adequately disclose the essential facts and
intended to
consideration on the basis of which it
recommend the modification of
the
measures as required by Article 20 of the basic Regu-
lation, and that, had it not been for these breaches, the
outcome of the anti-dumping investigation might have
been different; and

the scope of

— order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a Russian company specialising in the produc-
tion of fluoroplastics, chemicals, medical products and fertili-
sers,
including ammonium nitrate. The applicant exports
ammonium nitrate and other fertilisers to the Community.

It seeks the annulment of the contested Regulation on the
grounds that it violates Articles 1(1), 1(2), 3(2), 4(1) and 5(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) in that it extends the
existing anti-dumping measures to products which are not the
product concerned.

It further contends that the contested Regulation was adopted
in breach of its right of defence and of its procedural rights in
that (i) it was not granted the hearing it had requested pursuant
to Article 6(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and (ii)
the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts
and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recom-
mend the modification of the scope of the measures as required
by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

(1) OJ L 160, 23/06/2005, p. 1
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community. OJ L 56, 06/03/1996, p. 1