Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-241/13)

2013/C 207/63

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, S. Papaiannou and A. Vasilopoulou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In relation to the financial corrections imposed by the contested Commission implementing decision of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2013) 981 and published at OJ 2013 L 67, in so far as that decision imposes financial corrections on the Hellenic Republic, in relation to aid referred to in Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003, in the bovine, sheep and goat and tobacco sectors in the claim years 2006 and 2007, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment:

By the first plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the correction imposed for the weaknesses found as regards implementation of Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) is unlawful and should be annulled because: (a) it infringes Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003, which is implemented optionally by the Member States and confers a very broad discretion as regards definition of the persons entitled to the additional payment, of the eligibility criteria and of the more specific terms and conditions for making the additional payment; and (b) ineffectual implementation of Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 does not have the effect of causing damage to the Fund, as required by Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 (2) in order for a financial correction to be lawfully imposed.

By the second plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic contends that the correction imposed for shortcomings in key checks in the tobacco sector is unlawful and should be annulled because: (a) the Commission’s finding that the on-the-spot checks did not comply with Regulation No 796/2004 (3) is based on an incorrect interpretation and application of Article 23 of that regulation and on a deficient appraisal of the facts, and contains deficient and contradictory reasoning; and (b) the Commission’s finding that the key checks in processing undertakings were not carried out is based on an error as to the facts.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

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

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) 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 2004 L 141, p. 18).