- 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-480/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Greece v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0480
62017TN0480
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
23.10.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 357/18
(Case T-480/17)
(2017/C 357/23)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and Α. Vassilopoulou)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—annul the contested Commission Implementing Decision of 26 June 2017 in so far as it excluded from European Union financing, in the context of the clearance of accounts for compliance, expenditure of the Hellenic Republic amounting in total to EUR 1 182 054,72, by means of the imposition of one-off and flat-rate financial corrections on the ground of alleged weaknesses in the application of cross compliance within the framework of the EAGF and the EAFRD for the claim years 2012, 2013 and 2014, in accordance with what is set out in the pleadings and the pleas in law in support of annulment,·and
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:
1.By the first plea in law, it is claimed that the contested correction has been imposed unlawfully, on the basis of error as to the facts, with a defective and insufficient statement of reasons and in breach of the principles of good administration and equity, as shown in detail, in the first part of that plea, with respect to alleged weaknesses of certain elements in the verification of SMR 1 and particular elements in the verification of minimum requirements in the use of fertilisers and plant protection products, and, in the second part of that plea, with respect to a claimed weakness in risk analysis.
2.The second plea in law is based on a failure to state reasons, error as to the facts and the contested decision’s breach of the principle of proportionality in the part thereof that rejects the accurate calculation of the financial effect of the identified failings (were they to be real) which was established by the Greek authorities, given the recommendations of the Conciliation Body to the Commission.