CELEX: 62020CN0106
Language: en
Date: 2020-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-106/20 P: Appeal brought on 25 February by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-14/18, Hellenic Republic v European Commission.

11.5.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 161/38
            
         
      Appeal brought on 25 February by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-14/18, Hellenic Republic v European Commission.
      (Case C-106/20 P)
      (2020/C 161/50)
      Language of the case: Greek
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou)
      
         Other party: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the appeal should be upheld and that the judgment under appeal of 19 December 2019, in Case T-14/18, by which the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic on 16 January 2018 for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017, should be set aside in so far as that Commission Implementing Decision excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in relation to area-based payments for the 2014 claim yea, corresponding to 5 % of the total expenditure incurred in respect of permanent pasture, that is a net amount of EUR 12 482 555,68. The Hellenic Republic further claims that the Court should order the Commission to pay the costs.
      
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of its appeal, the appellant raises three grounds of appeal.
      In particular, the first ground of appeal concerns that part of the judgment under appeal by which the General Court rejects the argument put forward by the Hellenic Republic at the hearing on the basis of the ad hoc communication, on 15 May 2019, of the judgment of the Court in Case C-341/17 P. The first part of the first ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal infringed the rules of procedure and of the right to effective judicial protection, in so far as the General Court rejected the abovementioned argument of the Hellenic Republic as inadmissible, relying for that purpose on inadequate and contradictory reasoning. The second part of the first ground of appeal alleges erroneous interpretation and application of Article 2 of Commission Regulation 796/2004 as well as inadequate and contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal, in so far as the General Court held that the Hellenic Republic’s argument was ineffective.
      The second and third grounds of appeal relate to that part of the judgment under appeal in which the General Court rejected the other pleas for annulment. In particular, the second ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal distorted the evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings, in particular the full calculation table, with the estimates of the data of the 79 664 farmers who received aid for their pastures, the amounts unduly paid and the amounts of the penalties recovered by the Hellenic Republic, so that it is unlawful and vitiated by contradictory and inadequate reasoning.
      The third ground of appeal alleges erroneous interpretation and application of Article 31(1) and (2) of Regulation 1290/2005, Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation 1306/2013 and Article 12(1) to (6) of Delegated Regulation No 907/2014, infringement of the guidelines contained in Commission documents VI533097 and C(2015) 3675 final of 8 June 2015, infringement of the rules on the duty to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU), incorrect application of the rules of evidence (allocation of the burden of proof in such a way that the Hellenic Republic is required to adduce evidence a probatio diabolica) and incorrect application of the principles of non venire contra factum proprium (estoppel), ne bis in idem and the general principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the judgment under appeal is also vitiated by contradictory and inadequate reasoning.