Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-272/16)

(2016/C 270/61)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Κanellopoulos, Ο. Tsirkinidou, Α. Vasilopoulou and D. Ntourntoureka)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on eight grounds for annulment.

In particular, with respect to the financial correction amounting in total to EUR 166 797 866,22 applied to expenditure which was incurred in the decoupled direct aid sector for the claim years 2012 and 2013, the Hellenic Republic relies on three grounds for annulment.

The first ground for annulment concerning the correction imposed for the claim year 2012 is based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 (1) (and the later Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009 (2)).

The second ground for annulment, which also concerns the correction imposed for the claim year 2012, is based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the Guidelines (Document VI/5330/97), with respect to whether the conditions for the imposition of a 25 % financial correction for the year 2012 are met, and it is specifically claimed that the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion and at the same time both infringed the principle of proportionality (part Α) and erred in the calculation of the financial correction (part B).

By the third ground for annulment concerning the correction imposed for the claim year 2013 the applicant claims that that correction is unlawful, abusive, based on contradictory reasons, and on misinterpretation and misapplication of the Guidelines (Document VI/5330/97), and is in breach of the principles of sound management, proportionality, ne bis in idem and the applicant’s rights of defence.

Further, with respect to the financial correction in the sector of Rural Development EAFRD, Axes 1 + 3 — Investment orientated measures (20072013), the applicant relies on four grounds for annulment.

By the fourth and fifth grounds for annulment, concerning the correction imposed with respect to Measure 125, it is claimed that there is no legal basis, no statement of reasons and error as the facts, given that the Managing Authority acted lawfully and fully within its powers (the fourth ground for annulment), and that the imposition of a 5 % flat rate financial correction for the expenditure which was paid for the financial year 2010, amounting to EUR 506 480,19, was contrary to Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, (3) since that expenditure was incurred more than 24 months before the Commission gave notification in writing of its inspection findings.

By the sixth ground for annulment, concerning the correction imposed with respect to Measure 121, the applicant claims that the decision is unlawful, because the correction imposed and the method adopted for the calculation of the correction by the analogous application of Article 63 of Regulation No 809/2014 (4) is incompatible with Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and with the Guidelines in Commission Document VI/5330/97, and its implementation leads to results that are disproportionate by comparison with the identified deficiencies. In addition, with respect to the same measure, the applicant claims in the action’s seventh ground for annulment that there was no legal basis for the contested decision and no statement of reasons, and that the Guidelines in Document VI/5330/97 of the European Union were infringed.

The eighth ground for annulment concerns the infringement of Article 266 TFEU with respect to the Commission’s obligation to take measures to ensure the implementation of the judgment of the General Court on the failure to repay the sum of EUR 29 366 975,06 to the Hellenic Republic, after the judgment of the General Court in Case Τ-107/14, and also breach of the principles of sound management, legal certainty and sincere cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.

(1)  Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ L 141, 2004, p. 18)

(2)  Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ L 316, 2009, p. 1)

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 209, 2005, p. 1)

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ L 227, 2014, p. 69)