1.

infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005;

2.

the conditions for payment of the support in respect of tobacco were defined exhaustively and exclusively in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2075/92 (1) and therefore the General Court of the European Union erred when it unlawfully accepted that Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2848/1998 (2) lawfully laid down an additional condition for payment of the premium that the tobacco must be delivered to the first processor at the latest by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest and, further, Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998, which has the effect that as a result of late delivery by even one day the producer loses the aid in its entirety, infringes the principle of proportionality when read together with Article 39(1)(b) TFEU and Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2075/92;

3.

infringement of European Union Law — misinterpretation of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on late deliveries of tobacco);

4.

contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal and misinterpretation of Article 9(4) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the transfer of cultivation contracts) and

5.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2075/1992 and Article 7 of Regulation No 2848/1998 (on the use of leased installations or equipment by the approved first processor).

1.

misinterpretation of the fourth indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation 1621/1999 (3) as to the meaning of natural disaster and

2.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines in respect of flat-rate corrections in the area of dried grapes (sultanas for the 2004 harvest and currants for the 2005 harvest) since the conditions for the imposition of a correction of 25 % were not met and consequently the statement of reasons in the decision is insufficient.

1.

infringement of European Union law in respect of the legal basis for the correction, with misinterpretation of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 (4) when a valid legal basis is provided only by Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/05 (5) and

2.

infringement of European Union Law with misinterpretation and misapplication without updating of the guidelines for flat-rate corrections under the old CAP to the new CAP in respect of the distinction of audits as basic and supplementary, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality and the principle of legal certainty, a particular expression of which is the principle of non-retroactivity, since the amounts of the flat-rate corrections related to a distinct set of audit rules, and the contested updating of the abovementioned guidelines took place in June 2006 and consequently could not be applied to the 2006 reporting year.