Action brought on 24 February 2009 - Greece v Commission

(Case T-81/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by K. Meidanis and E. Lampadarios, assisted by M. Tassopoulou)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Commission Decision C (2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund ('ERDF') which was granted to Greece under Objective 1 of the operational programme 'Accessibility and Trunk Roads' by Commission Decision C (94) 3579 of 16 December 1994 authorising financial assistance from the ERDF, CCI No 94.08.09.019, in so far as it reduces the financial aid by imposing financial corrections amounting to EUR 11 946 583.53 and EUR 17 488 622, as more specifically set out in the application;

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contends that the contested decision should be annulled for the following reasons.

First, in the applicant's submission, the contested decision was adopted in breach of an essential procedural requirement laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, ¹ since the check on the basis of which the decision was adopted and financial corrections were imposed in respect of certain works was carried out by, amongst others, persons who were not Commission officials. Furthermore, in breach of the principle of transparency, the report on the check does not mention the names of the auditors from the private firm who participated in the check, nor is the report signed by them.

Second, the applicant pleads that the decision was adopted without full, clear and sufficient reasons being stated.

Third, the applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the law, in particular (i) it was adopted pursuant to a rule which had not been enacted in the programme period 1994-99 and (ii) the Commission misinterpreted the provisions of Greek law transposing a Community directive, or in the alternative the statement of reasons is insufficient.

Fourth, the applicant maintains that in adopting the decision the Commission misappraised the factual circumstances (error as to the facts) and infringed the principle of proportionality.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).