Case T-52/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, agricultural production, climate change, common market, competition, control of State aid, degradation of the environment, equal treatment, intra-EU trade, monetary compensatory amount, principle of proportionality, trade restriction








C_2012118EN.01002503.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/25





Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
(Case T-52/12)
2012/C 118/44
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul or amend the Commission decision of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2011‘concerning State aid C 3/2010 and compensation payments made by the Organismos Ellinikon Georgikon Asfaliseon (Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation) (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009’, notified under number C(2011) 7260 final.
By the first plea for annulment, the applicant submits that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU in conjunction with the provisions of Law No 1790/1988, (1) which govern ELGA, and that it assessed the facts incorrectly, because all the payments in 2009 (EUR 415 019 452) constituted genuine compensation for damage to crop production and livestock as a result of adverse weather conditions occurring in 2007 and 2008, which ELGA, as a sui generis social insurance body, had to make good in the context of the compulsory insurance scheme covering agricultural production.
By the second plea for annulment, the applicant pleads an error as regards the assessment of the facts and an infringement of essential procedural requirements because the Commission, incorrectly assessing the facts and stating defective and/or insufficient reasons, reached the conclusion that the payments in 2009 constitute unlawful State aid, since they are not justified by the nature and general scheme of ELGA’s system of compulsory insurance, they constituted an economic advantage for their recipients and they threatened to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States.
By the third plea for annulment, the applicant pleads misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and the infringement of essential procedural requirements, because the Commission unlawfully, and in any event with a deficient statement of reasons, also included in the financial amounts that it is necessary to recover as unlawful State aid the EUR 186 011 000,60 which corresponded to the compulsory insurance contributions paid by the farmers themselves in 2008 and 2009 within the framework of the compulsory insurance scheme to ELGA and which did not constitute unlawful State aid but private resources, so that that sum had to be deducted from the final sum to be recovered.
By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicant pleads misinterpretation and misapplication by the Commission of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and wrongful exercise of the discretion that is available to the Commission in the area of State aid, since in any event the payments in 2009 had to be regarded as compatible with the common market because of the manifest seriousness of the economic disturbance in the entire Greek economy and the entry into force of a provision of primary European Union law cannot depend upon the entry into force of a Commission communication such as the Temporary Community Framework.
By the fifth plea for annulment, the applicant submits that by the contested decision the Commission in any event infringed Articles 39, 107(3)(b) and 296 TFEU and the general principles of equal treatment, of proportionality, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of economic freedom and of the rules of competition, because of the unjustifiable and unreasoned exception and failure to apply immediately from 17 December 2008 the Temporary Community Framework — as in force for all other undertakings, in all other sectors of the Community economy — to undertakings specialised in primary agricultural production.
By the sixth plea for annulment, the applicant submits that by the contested decision the Commission carried out an erroneous assessment and calculation of the sums to be recovered, since it failed to deduct the de minimis aid as provided for in Regulations No 1860/2004 (2) and No 1535/2007 (3)‘relating to the application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production’.
By the seventh plea for annulment, the applicant submits that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007-2013 and wrongfully exercised its discretion — at the same time stating defective and contradictory reasons — in finding that the compensation granted in 2008 for damage to crop production caused by bears with an aid intensity of 100 % was compatible with the common market only at the rate of 80 %.


(1)  Law No 1790/1988 concerning ‘the organisation and operation of the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation and other provisions’ (FEK A 134/20.06.1988).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sectors.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production.