CELEX: C2000/355/12
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-331/00: Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

9.12.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/7
Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic                    With regard to arable crops and livestock premiums, it
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                   contends (sixth ground for annulment) that the Commission
                             munities                                  has exceeded the limits of its discretion in imposing the lump-
                                                                       sum deductions and that the principle of proportionality has
                                                                       been infringed.
                        (Case C-331/00)
                                                                       With regard to the 2 % deduction from the associations, it
                        (2000/C 355/12)                                contends (seventh ground for annulment) that the legislation
                                                                       has been misinterpreted and that the facts have been wrongly
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              assessed.
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic Republic,             Finally, with regard to late payments, it contends (eighth
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State        ground for annulment) that Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation
Legal Service, Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of that           No 296/96 and Article 8 of Regulation No 729/70 have been
Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that Service,           misinterpreted.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek
Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
      C(2000) 1847 Final of 5 July 2000 excluding from
      Community financing certain expenditure incurred by              Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Kingdom
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the             of Belgium against Commission of the European Com-
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                                             munities
      (EAGGF), which has been published in the Official Journal
      of the European Communities as Decision No 2000/449/EC                                    (Case C-332/00)
      (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49).
                                                                                               (2000/C 355/13)
Grounds for annulment and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 11 September
As regards arable crops and shortcomings of the integrated             2000 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Anni
administration and control system (IACS), the Hellenic Repub-          Snoecx, Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External
lic contends (first ground for annulment) that the facts               Trade and International Cooperation, acting as Agent, with an
have been assessed incorrectly and that the principle of               address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4
proportionality has been infringed. So far as concerns, in             Rue des Girondins.
particular, the alphanumeric identification system, Article 4 of
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 has been misinterpreted.                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
With regard to arable crops and poor quality of checks and             1.    Declare the application admissible and well founded;
supervision, the Hellenic Republic submits (second ground for
annulment) that the facts have been assessed incorrectly.              2.    Annul the European Commission decision of 5 July 2000
                                                                             amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
                                                                             accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
With regard to livestock premiums and, more specifically,                    expenditure for 1995 (1) of the Guarantee Section of the
failure to implement and complete the IACS, it contends (third               European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
ground for annulment) that the correction of 10 % is mistaken                (EAGGF), to the extent to which it excludes from
and unjustified.                                                             Community financing expenditure of BEF 50 763 827
                                                                             incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium in connection with
With regard to late payments (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96),                   aid relating to the sale at reduced price of butter and the
it submits (fourth ground for annulment) that the financial                  grant of aid for concentrated butter and cream intended
correction proposed is unjustified and that the principle of                 for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and
proportionality has been infringed.                                          other food products, and partially annul the European
                                                                             Commission decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from
                                                                             Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
With regard to late payment (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96), it                 the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
submits (fifth ground for annulment) that the second para-                   European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for
graph of Article 7 of Regulation No 1357/96 has been                         the financial years 1996 and 1997, in so far as it excludes
misinterpreted and that the facts have been assessed incor-                  from Community financing expenditure in the sum of
rectly.                                                                      EUR 1 602 256,45 and EUR 31 883,22 incurred by the