Action brought on 2 July 2013 – Hellenic Republic v Commission
(Case T-346/13)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, X. Basakou and A. Vasilopoulou)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
annul the Commission implementing decision of 2 May 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) 2436 and published at OJ 2013 L 123, as regards the part relating to the Hellenic Republic; and
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In relation to the financial corrections imposed by the contested Commission implementing decision of 2 May 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), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2013) 2436 and published at OJ 2013 L 123, in so far as that decision imposes on the Hellenic Republic a financial correction totalling EUR 6 175 094.49 for expenditure incurred by it within the framework of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, in Axis 2, 2007-13, area related measures in the financial years 2009 and 2010 (claim years 2008 and 2009), the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment:
By the first plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the decision lacks a lawful basis and a statement of reasons as regards the proposed flat rate correction of 5% because the on-the-spot controls carried out of all the commitments entered into were not undertaken on all the agricultural parcels that are referred to in the aid applications for the years relevant to the investigation.
By the second plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic contends that the decision concerning the imposition of a flat rate correction of 2% because deficiencies were found in the traceability of the AEM control reports generally, in breach of Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004, 1 was adopted in error as to the facts, and in any event reasons are not stated for the decision.
By the third plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic asserts that the decision lacks a lawful basis and a statement of reasons as regards the imposition of a flat rate correction of 2% in the separate matters ‘Organic Farming’ and ‘Organic Livestock Production’, since, apart from the carrying out, proved during the procedure, of specific controls relating to the measures in question by specialist accredited organic-crop control bodies, the Paying Agency was also obliged to carry out its own controls.
By the fourth plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the principle of proportionality is infringed by the proposed flat rate correction of 5% because certain commitments and, specifically, those relating to the use of fertiliser, plant protection products, pesticides or other related substances are monitored mainly visually. The reasons stated for the Commission decision are inadequate or otherwise contradictory.
____________1 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).