Case T-352/05: Action brought on  16 September 2005  — Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2005-09-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), public stock, storage cost

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/31

By the contested decision, the Commission informed the appli-
cant that its proposal did not satisfy the evaluation criteria in
the call for proposals. It based its decision on the fact that the
applicant's proposal did not succeed in explaining the way in
which it elaborates and takes into consideration the experience
previously acquired in that sphere in Liguria and claimed that
there are serious inconsistencies between the budget informa-
tion supplied in Annex 6 and that supplied in Annex 7.

The applicant challenges the decision on two main points:

— it maintains that, contrary to the findings of the contested
decision, there are no serious inconsistencies in the budget
information supplied in the annexes to its proposal, in that
it follows the model of a claim for subsidy published in the
Applicant's Guide and the annex thereto forming an inte-
gral part of the call for proposals. The applicant does not
dispute the existence of the difference between the budget
information supplied in Annex 6 and that supplied in
Annex 7, but maintains that that difference relates to the
structure and the different information requested in both
annexes; whereas Annex 6 provides only an indication of
the direct eligible expenditure, Annex 7b requires the appli-
cant to indicate both direct eligible expenditure and indirect
eligible expenditure. The applicant claims, first, that there is
no inconsistency between Annexes 6 and 7 to its proposal
and, second, that its proposal complies meticulously and on
all points with the model established by the Commission.

the applicant maintains that the Commission has made a mani-
fest error of assessment of the facts, has misused its powers
and has infringed the principle of legal certainty.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund OJ L 213,
13/08/1999, p. 5.

(2) Commission Notice of 12 January 2000 on the implementation of
innovation measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund
Regulation for the planning period 2000-2006.

(3) Notice entitled ‘Budget heading 04.021000.00.11 – Innovative
measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation:
“Innovative Approaches to the Management of Change” – Call for
proposals VP/2003/021’, OJ 2004 C 255, p. 11, and the ruler fixed
in the Applicant's Guide forming an integral part of that notice.

Action brought on 16 September 2005 — Hellenic
Republic v Commission

(Case T-352/05)

(2005/C 296/67)

Language of the case: Greek

— the applicant also contends that it demonstrated sufficiently
the way in which the proposal elaborates and takes into
consideration the experience previously acquired in the
sphere to which the innovative measure in question relates.
It claims that the alleged failure to explain the connection
between the proposal and the
experience previously
acquired is based on a reading of only one part of its
proposal. A reading of the proposal as a whole would show
the opposite.

Parties

Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanello-
poulos and S. Kharitaki)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

The applicant further alleges that by the contested decision the
Commission infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it
does not follow the rules it has itself established on the manner
of establishing the innovative nature of the project. More speci-
fically, in the applicant's submission, in assessing the innovative
nature of its project, the confined itself to one of the evaluation
criteria, namely its method of constructing and developing the
new project on the basis of previous experience, whereas its
project was innovative from the aspect of a different evaluation
criterion, namely a departure from the ordinary activities of the
organisations concerned, a criterion also accepted in the Appli-
cant's Guide.

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 finan-
cing 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

In support of its claims, the applicant also alleges that the
contested decision infringes Article 53 of the EC Treaty, Article
6 of Regulation No 1784/1999, the rules laid down in Notice
No COM (2000) 894 final (2) and also the rules established by
the Commission in the context of its call for proposals (3). Last,

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.

C 296/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

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 in the public storage sector, the appli-
cant 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.

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
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)
the
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of
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.

the

facts,

citing

insufficient

As regards the correction in the potato-growing and vineyard
sectors, the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment as
regards
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.

and

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
the Commission's
the applicant disputes
and sheepmeat),
assessment of the facts and considers that the reasons given are
mistaken. It also claims that the imposition of a flat-rate correc-
tion of 10 % is unlawful, constitutes a misinterpretation and

Action brought on 19 September 2005 — Zelenkovà/
Parliament

(Case T-356/05)

(2005/C 296/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Martina Zelenkovà (Brussels, Belgium) [represented
by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, C. Ronzi, lawyers]

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Give the applicant the benefit of her conclusions i.e. the
cancellation of the grading given in the 16 November 2004
recruitment decision of
the Appointing Authority (the
Parliament) which was to take effect on 1 December 2004
to grade the applicant at category A*, grade 5, step 2,
implying the reinstatement of all the applicant's rights as
deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal
and regular grading as of 1 December 2004, which means
a former LA8 grading or its equivalent according to Articles
1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation (A*7, with the
relevant step according to the rules in force before 1 May
2004);