Case C-252/18 PP: Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2018 in Case T-506/15 Hellenic Republic v European Commission
Date: 2018-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, agricultural real estate, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, single payment scheme








C_2018190EN.01001601.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/16





Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2018 in Case T-506/15 Hellenic Republic v European Commission
(Case C-252/18 PP)
(2018/C 190/22)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou, A. Vasilopoulou and E. Chroni)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant asks the Court to grant its appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court of 1 February 2018 in Case T-506/15, in accordance with the maters specifically set out in its appeal, uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic on 29 August 2015 in accordance with the form of order set out in its application, annul Commission Decision 2015/1119/EU of 22 June 2015 in so far as it imposes (a) one-off and flat-rate financial corrections of EUR 313 483 531,71 for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 claim years in the sector of area-related direct aid, and (b) a flat-rate financial correction of 2 %, with regard to cross-compliance, in the 2011 claim year, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds:






A.


In so far as the judgment under appeal examines the first and second grounds of appeal, concerning the correction of 25 % of area aid (paragraphs 48-140 of the judgment under appeal).
The first ground of appeal concerns the misinterpretation and application of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of the Commission of 21 April 2004, regarding the definition of pasture, and the misapplication of Article 296 TFEU, as well as the insufficient and inadequate reasoning of the judgment under appeal.
The second ground of appeal concerns the misinterpretation and misapplication of the Guidelines (document VI/5530/1997) with respect to whether the conditions for the imposition of a 25 % financial correction are met, misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 296 TFEU and of Articles 43, 44 and 137 of Regulation No 73/2009, insufficient and contradictory reasoning of the judgment under appeal, breach of the principle of equality of arms and alteration of the summary report.










B.


In so far as the judgment under appeal examines the third ground of appeal, concerning the imposition of a 5 % financial correction for weaknesses in the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) (paragraphs 141-162 of the judgment under appeal).
The third ground of appeal concerns breach of the principle of legality, of good administration, of the rights of defence of the person concerned, breach of the principle of proportionality, misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 296 TFEU and insufficient reasoning.










C.


In so far as the judgment under appeal examines the fourth ground of appeal, concerning the imposition of a financial correction of 2 % (paragraphs 163-183 of the judgment under appeal).
The fourth ground of appeal concerns the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1122/2009 and Article 27 of Regulation No 796/2004, inadequate reasoning of the judgment under appeal, as well as a distortion of the content of the application.










D.


In so far as the judgment under appeal examines the fifth ground of appeal, relating to the cross-compliance system (paragraphs 184 to 268 of the judgment under appeal).
The fifth ground of appeal concerns the erroneous interpretation and application of Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, as well as insufficient reasoning of the judgment under appeal.