- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-469/09: Action brought on 23 November 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0469
62009TN0469
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
30.1.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/62
(Case T-469/09)
2010/C 24/109
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—annul the contested Commission decision in its entirety;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In its action contesting Commission Decision C(2009) 7044 final of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community 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) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28) in so far as the decision concerns financial corrections to its detriment, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following two pleas for annulment.
By the first plea for annulment, concerning the fruit and vegetable (tomato) processing sector, the applicant pleads incorrect interpretation and application of Article 28(1)(f), Article 28(2), Article 31(1) and (2) and Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 (1) and of the guidelines AGRI VI 5330/97, 17933/2000 and 63983/2002 concerning financial corrections, given that in that sector all the key controls were effected satisfactorily and there were deficiencies only in ancillary secondary controls.
By the second plea for annulment, concerning the public storage of rice, the applicant submits that there is no valid legal basis for imposing the correction, since the Commission misinterpreted Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2148/1996 (2) or in the alternative that the principle of proportionality has been infringed.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 2003 L 218, p. 14).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2148/96 of 8 November 1996 laying down rules for evaluating and monitoring public intervention stocks of agricultural products (OJ 1996 L 288, p. 6).
* * *