Hertil anførte appellanten dog flere gange under førsteinstanssagen 63, at det angivne areal også var blevet sammenlignet med GIS-arealet i de sager, hvor indlæsningen af grafiske data havde fundet sted efter den 31. august, og at ansøgningerne vedrørende de afgrødegrupper, hvor forskellen mellem de to arealer var størst, ligesom det skete for de ansøgninger, hvor de grafiske data var indlæst inden denne dato, var blevet undersøgt som led i risikoanalysen og eventuelt udvalgt til fysisk kontrol på stedet.
On that point, the appellant had in fact argued, however, on several occasions during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, 64in particular, that for those files in respect of which the graphic data input in question was completed after 31 August, the areas declared and GIS areas were compared, and, as in the case of the files for which graphic data input had been completed before that date, the applications for groups of crops which displayed more marked differences between the areas declared and GIS areas were reviewed in the context of a risk analysis and may have been selected for physical on-the-spot checks.