Case T-356/08: Action brought on 1 September 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2008-09-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agri-monetary policy, harvest, wheat

C 285/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission made a
manifest error of assessment and based its decision on materi-
ally incorrect facts when concluding that the SoC arrangement
does not appreciably foreclose secondary market operators from
access to rough diamonds (the input foreclosure).

(1) Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission [2007] ECR II-2601, appeal
lodged by the Commission with the Court of Justice, Case C-441/07,
Commission v Alrosa, OJ 2007 C 283, p. 22.

(2) The rejection decision is appealed by the applicant before the Court
of First Instance in Case T-108/07 Spira v Commission, OJ 2007
C 129, p. 20.

Appeal brought on 26 August 2008 by Chantal De Fays
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission

(Case T-355/08 P)

(2008/C 285/87)

Language of the case: French

the period not covered by annual

In first place, the appellant is of the view that the CST erred in
law in its definition of the temporal scope of the decision of
21 November 2006 by which the administration, first, found
that the appellant had been regularly absent from 19 October
2006 and, secondly, withheld her remuneration for the whole
of
leave. The appellant
submits that the CST considered that the effects of the contested
decision extended only
from 19 October 2006 until
13 December 2006, that is, up to the point at which the admin-
istration received a medical certificate justifying the appellant's
absence, whereas, in fact, the effects of that decision continue
up to the present. That error of law is the outcome of an erro-
neous judicial assessment of the facts, the inaccuracy of which,
in the appellant's view, is attributable to the documents on the
case file.

In second place, the appellant states that the fact that the CST
based its decision that
the administration was entitled to
continue the suspension of the remuneration which was due to
the appellant on the existence of an implied decision is an error
of law, entailing breach of the second paragraph of Article 25,
the
Article 59(1) and Article 60 of
internal provisions of the Commission on the exercise of the
powers conferred on the appointing authority and the rights of
defence.

the Staff Regulations,

Parties

Action brought on 1 September 2008 — Hellenic Republic
v Commission of the European Communities

Appellant: Chantal De Fays (Bereldange, Luxembourg)
sented by F. Moyse, lawyer)

(repre-

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Declare the present appeal admissible;

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

Parties

(Case T-356/08)

(2008/C 285/88)

Language of the case: Greek

— grant the application for annulment made by the appellant

before the Civil Service Tribunal;

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Khalkias and E.
Leftheriotou)

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of

proceedings.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the
judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of 17 June
2008 in Case F-97/07 dismissing her action against the decision
of the appointing authority of 21 November 2006 applying
Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.

The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of her
appeal:

Form of order sought

— uphold the Hellenic Republic's action and annul

the
contested Commission decision in its entirety or otherwise
alter it in accordance with the matters that have been more
specifically set out, ordering that no correction be made
with regard to arable crops for the crop years 2004 and
2005 or, in any event, that the correction be restricted to
5 % and only to expenditure in respect of durum wheat;

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/49

— deduct the sum of EUR 609 833,96 from the correction
imposed of EUR 127 714 520,73 and from any correction
that may be imposed after the bringing of
the present
action;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Abouchar v
Commission

(Case T-367/08)

(2008/C 285/89)

Language of the case: French

8

2008,

action for
of
3411

annulment of Commission Decision
In this
C(2008)
under
July
No 2008/582/EC, which excludes expenditure amounting to
EUR 127 714 520,73 incurred by the Hellenic Republic from
Community financing,
in the context of the clearing of the
accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF), the applicant puts forward the following pleas in
support of the claim for annulment.

published

it

is

of
of

Article

Article

1(3)
58

submitted that

3508/92 (1),
1593/2000 (2),

Regulation
Regulation
and Article 20 of Regulation

By the first plea for annulment, which concerns the correction
applicable to durum wheat crops and to matters other
the Commission
than durum wheat,
misinterpreted and misapplied Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
No
(EC)
No
(EC)
No 445/2002 (3)
(EC)
No 1782/2003 (4) since it is permissible, on the basis of the
provisions in question, to identify land using alternative carto-
graphic material
to orthophoto maps, or
otherwise that the Commission erred in its assessment of the
facts and stated inadequate reasons for the corrections. The
legal basis for imposing the
applicant also pleads a lack of
correction since the Commission misinterpreted the facts and
exceeded the limits of
its discretion, so far as concerns its
determination that the on-site checks were not carried out in
time.

is equivalent

that

In the second plea for annulment, the applicant alleges a lack of
lawful basis and of a sufficient statement of reasons, with regard
to the alleged repetition of breaches and infringement of the
principles of proportionality and of the protection of legitimate
expectations, because, according to the applicant, the Commis-
sion had been informed of the court proceedings that were
delaying the completion of the system of control and, on its
recommendation and in cooperation with it,
the applicant
engaged in an action plan for that purpose.

(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) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003
establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93,
(EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC)
1868/94,
(EC)
No 1673/2000,
(EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001
(OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

(EC) No 1251/1999,

(EC) No 1254/1999,

Parties

Applicant: Michel Abouchar (Dakar, Senegal) (represented by: B.
Dubreuil Basire and J-J. Lorang, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare that officials of

the Commission/EDF committed

intentional torts in the performance of their tasks;

— declare that the Commission/EDF infringed Article 155 EC
and Article 311 of the Fourth Lomé Convention and the
general principles of sound administration, duty of care and
the protection of legitimate interests;

— declare that those torts directly gave rise to harm to the
applicant and order the Commission/EDF to pay him jointly
and severally, for all the damage he suffered, the sum of
EUR 4 500 000 by way of damages and interest;

— order the Commission/EDF to pay the applicant the sum of
EUR 100 000 as irrecoverable expenditure which the appli-
cant had to incur;

— order

the Commission to pay the entire costs of

the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

implementing rules of

By means of his action for non-contractual liability, the appli-
cant is seeking to obtain a declaration that the Commission
infringed the financial
the Sixth and
Seventh European Development Fund (‘the EDF’) and of the so-
called ‘Lomé III’ and ‘Lomé IV’ (1) Conventions linking the Com-
munity with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (‘ACP’), in
the context of managing resources of the EDF concerning a
project to finance Small and Medium Enterprises in the region
of Saint-Louis of Senegal.

In this case, the applicant, the beneficiary of a loan for a vege-
table farm project in the eligible region, takes the view that
funds allegedly
management errors and misappropriation of
imputed to Commission officials had the effect of immediately
paralysing his farming project set up under the European Devel-
opment Fund.