Case T-33/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), closing of accounts, management accounting

C 82/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

From a substantive legal standpoint, the contested measure is
allegedly based on a manifest error of assessment and violates,
according to the applicant
(i) Article 4(1)(f) of Directive
91/414/EEC, (ii) Article 5 of the MRL Directive, as well as (iii)
fundamental principles of Community law, namely (a) legitimate
expectations and legal certainty, (b) Article 211 EC and the prin-
ciple of sound administration, and (c) the principle of propor-
tionality.

(1) Commission Directive 2006/92/EC of 9 November 2006 amending
annexes
to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and
90/642/EEC as regards maximum levels for captan, dichlorvos,
ethion and folpet (OJ, L 311, p. 31).

Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Hellenic Republic
v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-33/07)

(2007/C 82/91)

Language of the case: Greek

them and the loss suffered by the European Community, and, in
the alternative, the Commission lacked power ratione temporis to
impose corrections.

More specifically, in the olive oil sector, the applicant submits
that the defendant exceeded the limits of the discretion enjoyed
by it, because it doubled the correction from 5 % to 10 %
although no worsening — but, on the contrary, an improve-
ment — of the control system had been noted. Also, in the
applicant's submission the defendant erred in its interpretation
of Community provisions and in the assessment of the facts,
infringing the principle of proportionality.

In relation to the cotton sector, the applicant puts forward as a
plea for annulment incorrect assessment of the facts, incorrect
reasoning, the lack of a legal basis for imposing the correction,
the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 12(1) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1201/89 (2) and infringement of the prin-
ciple of legal certainty because the duration of the procedure for
allocating expenditure exceeded 10 years.

In relation to the grape sector, the applicant puts forward the
argument that the defendant misinterpreted the guidelines for
corrections
inadequate
in setting the figure of 10 % for
secondary controls, and that the defendant gave an inadequate
statement of reasons for the decision as regards the correction
for currants.

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and G.
Kanellopoulos)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

In relation to citrus fruit, the applicant submits that the defen-
dant mistakenly relied upon, and did not provide a sufficient
statement of reasons in respect of, the stated deficiencies in
administrative controls, infringing the principle of proportion-
ality; in the alternative it erred in its interpretation and temporal
application of Annex 16 to document 17933/2000 with regard
to the classification of the checks in question as basic.

Form of order sought

— annul

the contested Commission decision or alter it

in
accordance with the matters set out more specifically below;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its action challenging Commission Decision C(2006) 5993
final of 14 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96) by which
the Commission excluded from Community financing certain
expenditure incurred by the Member States — in the present
case the Hellenic Republic — in the context of clearing expendi-
the European Agricultural
ture of
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the Hellenic Republic
puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

the Guarantee Section of

By the first, general, plea of annulment, which relates to all the
corrections, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed
an essential procedural requirement which is laid down in sub-
paragraph (a) [sic] of the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of
Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (1),
in respect of the failure to
conduct a bilateral discussion with the Greek authorities on the
the infringements attributed to
assessment of

the gravity of

Finally, with regard to the late payments, the applicant pleads
that there was an incorrect assessment of the facts because of
the imposition of a double correction in respect of budget item
B01-1210-160,
interpretation and application of
Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (3) in relation to the
basis for calculation of the 4 % reserve, and an incorrect assess-
ment and insufficient statement of reasons so far as concerns
the exceptional circumstances and special management condi-
tions that were put forward.

incorrect

(1) 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 No L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1201/89 of 3 May 1989 laying
down rules implementing the system of aid for cotton (OJ No L 123,
4.5.1989, p. 23).

(3) 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 No L 39, 17.2.1996, p. 5).