# C_2004106EN.01004602.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/46

---

Appeal brought on 26 March 2004 (fax 23 March 2004) by Euroagri srl against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-180/01 between Euroagri srl and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-153/04 P)

(2004/C 106/80)

An appeal against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 28 January 2004 in Case T-180/01 between Euroagri srl and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March 2004 by Euroagri srl, represented by W. Masucci, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment at first instance delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-180/01 and accordingly grant the forms of order sought by the applicant company at first instance, cited and transcribed in full here: |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment at first instance delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-180/01 and accordingly grant the forms of order sought by the applicant company at first instance, cited and transcribed in full here:

| — | on the merits: annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the merits: annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative: annul the contested decision in part and reduce the assistance granted to the applicant in proportion to the assistance actually provided; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: annul the contested decision in part and reduce the assistance granted to the applicant in proportion to the assistance actually provided;

| — | on the merits, in the preparatory inquiries: order the Commission to produce all the reports it sent to the applicant on the Endovena project, order the examination of witnesses and the personal appearance of the applicant itself, and also the making of an expert's report and/or an on-the-spot check; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the merits, in the preparatory inquiries: order the Commission to produce all the reports it sent to the applicant on the Endovena project, order the examination of witnesses and the personal appearance of the applicant itself, and also the making of an expert's report and/or an on-the-spot check;

| — | in addition, it reiterates in all the requests for preparatory inquiries already put forward at first instance the irregular form of the submissions of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

in addition, it reiterates in all the requests for preparatory inquiries already put forward at first instance the irregular form of the submissions of the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant maintains that the contested decision is unlawful on the following grounds:

| — | failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of due process and the rights of the defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of due process and the rights of the defence;

| — | infringement of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 (obligation to request the Member State to submit comments) |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 (obligation to request the Member State to submit comments)

| — | infringement of Article 25 of Regulation No 4253/88 (obligation to ensure monitoring) |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 25 of Regulation No 4253/88 (obligation to ensure monitoring)

| — | mistaken assessment of the alleged irregularities committed by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

mistaken assessment of the alleged irregularities committed by the applicant;

| — | infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of proportionality.

---