Case T-86/08: Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2008-02-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), application of EU law, infringement of EU law

C 142/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2008

Re:

Action for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the
the EIB's negligence and failures in
applicants by reason of
monitoring the use of funds intended for the completion of the
project of 2K-Teint,
in performance of the financing contract
concluded between the EIB, as agent of the Community, and the
Kingdom of Morocco.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. 2K-Teint SARL, Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila
Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia
Kermoudi are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the
costs incurred by the Commission and the European Investment
Bank (EIB).

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Hellenic Republic
v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-86/08)

(2008/C 142/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: B. Kondolaimos, S.
Kharitaki, and by M. Tassopoulou)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to

— annul or otherwise amend the Commission's decision of
20 December 2007, notified under No E(2007) 6514 final
and published as Decision 2008/68/EC (OJ 2008 L 18,
p. 12), in so far as it imposes financial corrections on the
Hellenic Republic as specified in the application;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

imposed on it
(b) guarantee accompanying measures,
payment deadlines.

sectors:

in the

(a)

fruit and vegetables,
failure to meet

(c)

The applicant claims that
the contested decision should be
annulled because it is unlawful, inasmuch as Community provi-
sions were misinterpreted and misapplied, or it was based on an
error as to the facts and incorrect assessment of the factual
circumstances, or otherwise as having defective, insufficient and
imprecise reasoning, undermining the legal basis of the decision;
in addition it should be annulled because in imposing the
corrections in question the Commission infringed the principle
of proportionality and exceeded the bounds of its discretion.

In particular the applicant puts forward six grounds for annul-
ment.

in view of the factual circum-
As regards citrus processing,
the correction of 2 % imposed
that
stances and the fact
concerns the repetition of
the procedure from the bilateral
consultation stage, after the annulment of a similar Commission
decision by the Court of Justice of the European Communities
in Case C-5/03 (1), the applicant alludes first to the fact that the
Commission was in breach of its obligation to comply with the
judgments of the Court of Justice under Article 233 EC and the
principle of res iudicata, and also with the Community rules
and guidelines for the clearance of accounts. The applicant also
submits that the Commission did not have the necessary powers
at the time, that the imposition of a correction for a short-
coming in supplementary checking was unlawful and,
lastly,
that the 24-month rule was infringed because of the erroneous
categorisation of the letter of 1999 as a letter of conclusions.

Secondly, the applicant alleges error as to the facts, insufficient
reasoning, infringement of the principle of proportionality and
that the Commission exceeded the bounds of its discretion in
view of
the fact that the alleged infringement (payment by
cheque instead of bank transfer) concerns a shortcoming rather
than the non-existence of supplementary controls, with no
finding of unlawful payment, in conjunction with the date when
it was effected.

Thirdly, with regard to the correction in the sector of guarantee
accompanying measures, the applicant alleges infringement of
essential procedural requirements and otherwise alludes to the
fact that at the time the Commission was not empowered to
impose financial corrections retroactively for a period earlier
than 24 months before the sending of the conciliation letter.
Fourthly, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is
vitiated by insufficient reasoning, in so far as the conciliation
letter merely refers to a shortcoming and in the summary there
is doubt as to the exact reason for the correction.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
in so far as it concerns the financial corrections
(EAGGF)

Fifthly, the applicant maintains that the Commission was in
error as to the facts and imposed a correction of 5 % in respect
of agro-environmental measures and the salvage measure in
infringement of the Community rules and guidelines for the
clearance of accounts, without justification,
in breach of the
principle of proportionality and exceeding the bounds of its
discretion.

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/27

in view of the automatic application of the scale of
Sixthly,
in Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (2)
reductions
concerning
advances, and without any doubt being cast on the veracity of
the reasons which prompted late payments, with the conse-
quence that 100 % of expenditure on late payments was
excluded, the applicant alleges infringement of the Community
rules and guidelines for the clearance of accounts.

(1) Judgment of 7 July 2005 in Case C-5/03 Hellenic Republic v Commis-

sion [2005] ECR I-5925.

(2) 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).

Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Republic of
Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-87/08)

(2008/C 142/48)

Language of the case: Greek

Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech
Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus,
the Republic of Latvia,
the
Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of
Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic (2)
(‘the 2003 Act of Accession’) and Protocol No 10, on
Cyprus, to the 2003 Act of Accession (3);

the Republic of Lithuania,

— third, because the notice is contrary to or incompatible with
both obligations flowing from rules of mandatory interna-
tional law and United Nations Security Council Resolutions
541(1983) and 550(1984); and

— fourth, because the notice was not published in the Official

Journal.

(1) OJ 2006 L 65, p. 5.
(2) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33.
(3) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 955.

Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Republic of
Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-88/08)

(2008/C 142/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

— annul

the

the

notice

procurement

under
conclusion of

reference
EuropeAid/126225/C/SER/CY for
a
contract entitled ‘Technical assistance for engineering works
for waste management infrastructure and rehabilitation of
dumping sites in the northern part of Cyprus’, which was
published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.
eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 8 December 2007,
and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs.

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul

the

notice

procurement

reference
a
EuropeAid/125242/C/SER/CY for
contract entitled ‘Technical assistance to support implemen-
tation of the Rural Development Sector Programme’, which
was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.
europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 6 December
2007, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice;

under
conclusion of

the

Pleas in law and main arguments

the costs.

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

The applicant submits that
following reasons:

the notice is unlawful

for

the

Pleas in law and main arguments

— first, because,

in issuing the notice,

the Commission
exceeded and/or infringed its legal basis,
to be specific
Council Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006
support
establishing
for
an instrument of
encouraging the economic development of
the Turkish
Cypriot community and amending Council Regulation (EC)
No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruc-
tion (1);

financial

— second, because the notice is contrary to and/or incompa-
tible with Article 299 EC, as amended by Article 19 of the

The applicant submits that
following reasons:

the notice is unlawful

for

the

— first, because,

in issuing the notice,

the Commission
exceeded and/or infringed its legal basis,
to be specific
Council Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006
support
establishing
for
an instrument of
the Turkish
encouraging the economic development of
Cypriot community and amending Council Regulation (EC)
No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruc-
tion (1);

financial