Action brought on 1 August 2025 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-534/25)

(C/2025/5717)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Georgiadis, E. Leftheriotou, A.E. Vasilopoulou and E-E. Krompa, Agents)

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 20 pleas in law.

The first three pleas concern investigation ΑΑ/2016/013/GR. In particular, it is argued that the Commission’s decision was adopted in breach of the accounts clearance procedure and of res judicata resulting from the judgment of 9 September 2020 in Case Τ-46/19 (first plea), and that a financial correction was imposed in breach of Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (second plea). It is also claimed that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, and was adopted in breach of the Guidelines on the qualitative assessment of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) ‘Executable Test Suite (ETS) LPIS data quality measures, version 6.0’ and of the principle of proportionality (third plea).

The next seven pleas in law relate to investigation ΑΑ/2019/006/GR. The fourth plea concerns the Commission’s complaints in relation to greening practices, both in investigation ΑΑ/2019/006/GR and in the subsequent investigation AA/2022/004/GR, and is based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of the relevant provisions of Articles 44 to 46 of Regulation No 1307/2013. The fifth plea, which mirrors the third plea, alleges misinterpretation of EU law and breach of the Guidelines on the qualitative assessment of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) ‘Executable Test Suite (ETS) LPIS data quality measures, version 6.0’ and of the principle of proportionality. By its sixth plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission’s assessment of the correct identification of the reference parcels in the LPIS, both in investigation ΑΑ/2019/006/GR and in investigation ΑΑ/2022/004/GR, has no legal basis and breaches the principle of legitimate expectations. In addition, the applicant claims misinterpretation and misapplication of the relevant EU provisions as regards the findings on the number of on-the-spot checks in the voluntary coupled support schemes (seventh plea) and the administrative reviews under those schemes (eighth plea). The ninth plea, relating to appropriate measures to be taken in the light of the results of the qualitative assessment of the LPIS, alleges infringement of Article 34 of Regulation No 908/2014, an error of fact and a failure to state reasons. Finally, the tenth plea alleges that the flat-rate correction applied, in particular at a rate of 5.94 % and 6.52 %, is unlawful and unjustified.

Eight pleas in law, in addition to the fourth and sixth pleas, relate to investigation ΑΑ/2022/004/GR. In particular, the applicant claims that the complaint concerning a failure to conduct a review of the artificial creation of the aid conditions is unfounded (eleventh plea), that the complaint relating to the areas at the farmer’s disposal has no legal basis, is arbitrary and unreasoned (twelfth plea), that the finding that there was no administrative review of the voluntary coupled support schemes is unlawful and invalid (thirteenth plea), and that the Commission’s finding concerning permanent grassland is based on a misinterpretation of EU law (fourteenth plea), whereas, as regards the maintenance of agricultural land against land abandonment, that finding relies on an incorrect factual basis and is therefore vitiated by an error of fact (fifteenth plea). Furthermore, as regards the correct calculation of the aid, it is claimed that the Commission’s decision is unfounded, unjustified and factually incorrect (sixteenth plea), while its complaint regarding the subsidiary review is also unfounded and unjustified (seventeenth plea). Lastly, by its eighteenth plea, the applicant claims that the correction imposed is vitiated by a lack of proportionality.

Finally, as regards the investigation relating to cross-compliance XC/2022/005/GR, the applicant claims that the Commission, which applied a flat-rate correction of 5 % on the ground that checks had not been carried out throughout the year, misinterpreted and misapplied the rules of EU law (nineteenth plea) and applied a disproportionate financial correction (twentieth plea in law).