Action brought on 21 August 2012 - Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-376/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, E. Leftheriotou and S. Papaioannou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

uphold the action;

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3838 of 22 June 2012 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(2012) 3838 and published at OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83 (2012/336/EU), in so far as it concerns financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the dried grape sector and in the area of unlawful plantation of vineyards;

order the Commission to pay the costs;

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the Commission implementing decision of 22 June 2012 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(2012) 3838 and published at OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83 (2012/336/EU), in so far as it concerns financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the dried grape sector for the marketing year 2006/07 and in the wine sector - plantation of vines without the right to replant.

As regards the correction in the dried grape sector, the applicant contends, first, that the corrections imposed at a rate of 100% for sultanas and at a rate of 25% for currants, relating to the reduction in minimum yield, the specialisation of the vineyard plots, actual yields and deliveries, are based on an incorrect assessment of the facts and on a misinterpretation and misapplication of the fourth indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1621/1999. ²

Second, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful and should be annulled because the imposition by the Commission of a flat-rate correction of 100% for sultanas and 25% for currants, relating to deficiencies as regards the reduction in minimum yield, the failure to observe the requirement for specialisation of vineyard plots and actual yields and deliveries, is based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Annex 2 to document VI/5530/97, Annex 17 to document AGRI/17933/2000 and document AGRI/60637/2006, lacks an adequate statement of reasons, is disproportionate to the deficiencies found and goes beyond the discretion available to the Commission.

As regards plantation without the right to replant, the applicant contends, first, that the imposition of a financial correction by the Commission is unlawful and should be annulled because (a) it concerns the rejection of expenditure that was effected more than 24 months before the communication of the results of the Commission's investigation, in breach of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 ⁴ and now Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005,  and (b) it infringes the principle of legal certainty and weakens the rights of defence and of support of the applicant's submissions because it goes back to events and acts of past decades.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission's view that the areas which were regularised under Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation No 1493/1999  have been regularised in a manner not compatible with that provision, because the fact that the vineyard register was not completed at the time when the applications for regularisation were drawn up meant that the necessary guarantees for the checking of deviations were not provided, is based on an error as to the facts.

Fourth, the applicant contends that the contested decision is unlawful and should be annulled because the correction imposed and the method applied for calculating it, with the application mutatis mutandis of Article 86 of Regulation No 479/2008,  is contrary to Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and to the guidelines in document VI/5330/87, and the method's application leads to results that are disproportionate to the deficiencies found.

Fifth, the applicant submits that the Commission's determination that the total area regularised pursuant to Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation No 1493/1999 was 7 112.04 hectares and that the average value of the planting rights was EUR 1 500/hectare is based on an error as to the facts, lacks an adequate statement of reasons and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

____________

¹ - Commission Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes.

² - Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

³ - Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

⁴ - Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine.

⁵ - Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999.