Case T-214/07: Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2007-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Aegean Sea, EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural expenditure, island, principle of proportionality, supply

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/39

The applicant submits that
the Commission has infringed
Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, as well as the principle of
legal certainty and legitimate expectation, by failing to published
laid down by
the contested decision within the time limit
Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.

In addition, the applicant states that the Commission exceeded
its power and thus infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with
Articles 9(1) and 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC in that, in the
contested decision,
it applied its own method for fixing the
maximum quantity of allowances and on basis of that method
in fact laid down, in binding form, the total quantity of allow-
ances which the Czech Republic is entitled to allocate.

Even if the Commission were entitled to use its own method for
establishing that the national allocation plan complies with the
requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC, it infringed Article 9(3)
of that directive in that (i) the method it used was neither trans-
parent nor objective and (ii) the resulting quantity of emissions
allowances does not comply with the criteria laid down in
Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed
Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC by failing adequately to
state reasons.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive [96/61/EC] (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Hellenic Republic v
Commission

(Case T-214/07)

(2007/C 199/75)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by:
G. Kanellopoulos)

I. Khalkias and

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

be made in the sector of measures for the smaller Aegean
islands concerning certain agricultural products or, in any
event, that it be limited to 2 %.

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action against Commission Decision No E(2007) 1663
final of 18 April 2007, published as Commission Decision
2007/243/EC (OJ 2007 L 106, p. 55), on the basis of which the
Commission excluded from Community financing certain
expenditure incurred by the Member States — in this case the
Hellenic Republic — under the Guarantee Section of the Euro-
pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the
Hellenic Republic puts forward the following grounds for annul-
ment:

In the first general ground for annulment, concerning the
correction to the arable crops sectors, to the POSEI measure and
to the tomato processing sector, the applicant claims that the
defendant was in breach of an essential procedural requirement
with regard to the lack of discussion as to the assessment of the
seriousness of the infringements ascribed to Greece, the damage
suffered by the Community and the level of
the correction
in the alternative, the decision should be annulled,
imposed;
according to the applicant, because the Commission was not
empowered ratio temporis to impose corrections beyond the
24 months preceding the date of the document in which it
formulated its final position on the correction and the level of
that correction.

of

1(3)

Regulation

In the second ground of annulment, concerning the correction
in respect of arable crops, the applicant alleges misinterpretation
and misapplication of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
3508/95 (1),
No
Article
(EC)
No 1593/2000 (2)
and Article 58 of Regulation (EC)
No 445/2002 (3) since, on the basis of those provisions, it is
also permissible to identify land by means of cartographic mate-
rials equivalent to orthophotomaps; in the alternative, the appli-
cant alleges incorrect assessment of the factual circumstances
and insufficient reasoning given for the disputed corrections.
The applicant also alleges misinterpretation and misapplication
of Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 or, in the alterna-
tive, incorrect assessment of the factual circumstances as regards
the on-the-spot checks and the period over which they were
carried out, as well as lack of any legal basis for imposing the
correction, because the Commission misinterpreted, in the appli-
cant's view, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (4).
The applicant also maintains that, in particular as concerns the
correction of 10 % to durum wheat expenditure, the Commis-
sion wrongly assessed the factual circumstances and went
beyond the limits of its discretion.

— annulment of the contested decision in its entirety; in the
alternative, amendment of the contested Commission deci-
sion as specified, namely: limitation of the relevant correc-
tion to the 24 months in fact considered; no correction in
the sector of arable crops for the harvesting year 2003 or, in
any event, that the correction be limited to only 2 % of the
expenditure for durum wheat; that no financial correction

In its third ground of annulment, the applicant considers that,
with the imposition of the corrections of 5 % and 10 % in
respect of arable crops, the principle of proportionality has been
infringed since, in relation to the previous year, the improve-
ments to the system were significant, a fact that was, moreover,
noted by the Commission.

C 199/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

In the fourth ground of annulment, which concerns the POSEI
measure — Smaller Aegean Islands — the applicant submits
(a) that Article 3(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 (5) and
Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2958/93 (6) were misinter-
preted and misapplied in respect of the arrangements for the
supply [of certain agricultural products] to the smaller Aegean
islands or, in the alternative, that the factual circumstances were
wrongly assessed, since the Greek authorities acted as prescribed
by the regulations; (b) that, similarly, as regards potato fields
and olive groves on the small islands of the Aegean, the factual
circumstances were wrongly assessed, since the LPIS (7) and the
Registers functioned normally and, in any event, in respect of
any minor defects, a general correction to the regime of arable
crops was imposed on the applicant and a second penalty
should not be imposed for the same reason in respect of the
individual regimes and lastly (c) the correction to the POSEI
measure was contrary to the principle of proportionality.

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

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1593/2000 of 17 July 2000 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administra-
tion and control
system for certain Community aid schemes
(OJ 2000 L 182, p. 4).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002
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 2002 L 74, p. 1).

(4) 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 2001 L 327, p. 11).
(5) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing
specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain
agricultural products (OJ 1993 L 184, p. 1).

(6) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2958/93 of 27 October 1993
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2019/93 as regards the specific arrangements for the
supply of certain agricultural products (OJ 1993 L 267, p. 4).

(7) Land Parcel Identification System.

Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Transports Schiocchet
— Excursions v Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the Commission to be liable non-contractually for
the infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights under
Council Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of 20 March 1972;

— declare the Commission to be liable non-contractually for
the infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights since
the
coming into force of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 684/92 of 16 March 1992;

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of
the heads of
sum of
claim referred to above,
EUR 50 723 808,39, which failing any other amount,
including a higher one, to be certified by an expert, together
with default interest on that sum from the date of the judg-
ment to be delivered until the date of actual payment, at the
rate of 8 % per year;

the

— order the Commission to pay the costs;

— reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the applicant

is bringing an action for
By this application,
non-contractual
liability seeking to obtain reparation for the
damage allegedly suffered by it following the adoption by the
Commission of Decision 89/524/EEC of 7 September 1989 on
a dispute between Luxembourg and France on the establishment
of a special
service between these two
States (1), which was the subject of an action for annulment
brought by the applicant and dismissed by the Court by judg-
ment of 16 April 1991, delivered in Case C-354/89 Schiocchet
v Commission (2), and following the adoption of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules
for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (3).

regular passenger

(Case T-220/07)

(2007/C 199/76)

Language of the case: French

In its application, the applicant claims that by adopting the
measures in question the Community institutions have infringed
its fundamental rights by regularising an unlawful situation
for bus transport
involving its competitors on the market
between Luxembourg and France, who were carrying on their
activities without prior authorisation.

Parties

Applicant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions
France) (represented by: D. Schönberger, lawyer)

(Beuvillers,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(1) OJ 1989 L 272, p. 18.
(2) [1991] ECR I-1775.
(3) OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1.