21.12.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/17

(Case T-550/13)

2013/C 377/40

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’s final and definitive decision of 13 August 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) 5225 and published at OJ 2013 L 219), as regards the part relating to the Hellenic Republic;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following grounds for annulment:

By the first ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic contends that the imposition of corrections in 2013 after more than four years’ inaction on the part of the Commission regarding deficiencies in the control system, which relate to the financial years 2006 and 2007 and had already been identified in 2008, infringes the general principle of legal certainty and the general principles requiring action to be taken within a reasonable time and the Commission to act timeously, on account of the unjustifiable and excessive length of the procedure which is prejudicial to the Hellenic Republic in the present financial situation, and it constitutes an absolute financial surprise.

By the second ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission, erring as to the facts and stating totally inadequate reasons, reached the conclusion that two key controls were not carried out and proposed a correction amounting to a flat rate of 10 %, and that the rate could not in any event exceed the rate of 5 % which is imposed in cases where deficiencies in key controls are found.

By the third ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the POSEI — Small Aegean Islands sector, the Hellenic Republic submits that the Commission decision lacks a specific statement of reasons so as to justify the correction imposed.