Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2004:89
Date: 2004-02-12
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Concepts: Appeals;Structural funds
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Community funding — 
Procedure for cancelling financial assistance — Commission s obligations — Obli­
gation to request the Member State concerned to submit its observations within a 
specified period of time — Obligation does not extend to a duty to wait for those 
observations before adopting a decision to cancel assistance 
(Council Regulations No 2052/88, Art. 4(1), and No 4253/88, Art. 24(1) and (2)) 
I - 1763 
SUMMARY — CASE C-330/01 P 
2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect appraisal of the facts — Inadmissible — Whether 
the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of evidence — Possible only where the 
clear sense of the evidence has been distorted 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of justice, Art. 51, first para.) 
1. With regard to the alleged need for the 
Commission to receive the observa­
tions of the Member State concerned 
before cancelling financial assistance, 
Article 24(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 
laying down provisions for implement­
ing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards 
coordination of the activities of the 
different Structural Funds between 
themselves and with the operations of 
the European Investment Bank and the 
other existing financial instruments 
provides only that the Commission is 
to conduct a suitable examination of 
the case, in particular requesting that 
the Member State concerned or other 
authorities designated by it to imple­
ment the operation submit their com­
ments within a specified period of time. 
Following this examination, the Com­
mission may take the necessary meas­
ures if the examination reveals an 
irregularity. 
It is not apparent from the wording of 
that article that, on an appropriate 
examination of the case, the Commis­
sion's obligation goes further than the 
mere requirement that it request the 
Member State or the other authorities 
appointed by it to implement the action 
to submit their observations within a 
specified period. That is corroborated 
by the consideration that both the 
reference to a specified period and the 
C o m m i s s i o n ' s p o w e r u n d e r 
Article 24(2) to cancel assistance 
would be totally deprived of usefulness 
if, prior to the adoption of a decision, 
the Commission were obliged to wait 
for the Member State concerned to 
submit its observations. 
T h e c o n c e p t of p a r t n e r s h i p in 
A r t i c l e 2 4 ( 1 ) of R e g u l a t i o n 
No 4253/88 and in Article 4(1) of 
Regulation N o 2052/88 , which is 
viewed as a close c o l l a b o r a t i o n 
between the Commission, the Member 
State concerned and the competent 
authorities appointed by the latter at 
national, regional, local or other level, 
does not require the adoption by the 
Commission of a decision to cancel 
assistance to be subject to prior receipt 
by the Commission of the observations 
of a Member State. Nor may those 
articles found a competence enabling a 
Member State to impose on the Com­
mission obligations additional to those 
provided for in Article 24(1) of Regu­
lation No 4253/88. 
(see paras 29, 31-32) 
I - 1764 
HORTIPLANT v COMMISSION 
2. It follows from Article 225 EC and the 
first paragraph of Article 51 of the 
Statute of the Court of Justice that the 
latter is not competent to find the facts 
or, as a rule, to examine the evidence 
which the Court of First Instance 
accepted in support of those facts. 
Provided that the evidence has been 
properly obtained and the general 
principles of law and the rules of 
procedure in relation to the burden of 
proof and the taking of evidence have 
been observed, it is for the Court of 
First Instance alone to assess the value 
which should be attached to the evi­
dence produced to it. That appraisal 
does not therefore constitute, save 
where the clear sense of that evidence 
has been distorted, a point of law 
which is subject, as such, to review by 
the Court. 
(see para. 36) 
I - 1765