Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:415
Date: 2001-07-12
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — Review 
by the Court of justice of assessment of evidence — Excluded unless the sense of 
evidence has been distorted 
(Art. 225(1) EC; EC Statute of the Court of justice, Art. 51) 
2. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Community funding for 
national projects — Assessment of eligible expenses — Commission's measure of 
discretion 
(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 15(2), first and second subparas) 
I -867 
SUMMARY — CASE C-500/99 P 
3. Acts of the institutions — Withdrawal — Unlawful acts — Conditions — Observ­
ance of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations 
1. Under Article 225(1) EC and Article 51 
of the EC Statute of the Court of 
Justice, an appeal may lie only on 
grounds relating to the infringement 
of rules of law. The Court of Justice 
does not have jurisdiction to find the 
facts. Nor, in principle, does it have 
jurisdiction to examine the evidence 
which the Court of First Instance 
accepts as establishing those facts. It 
is for the Court of First Instance alone 
to assess the weight that should be 
attached to the evidence adduced 
before it. That assessment does not 
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 of Justice. 
(see para. 59) 
2. It is clear from the second subpara­
graph of Article 15(2) of Regulation 
No 4253/88, laying down provisions 
for implement ing Regu la t ion 
No 2052/88 as regards coordination 
of the activities of the different Struc­
tural Funds between themselves and 
with the operations of the European 
Investment Bank and the other existing 
financial instruments that that provi­
sion is intended to confer on the 
Commission a measure of discretion. 
Furthermore, that provision constitutes 
an exception to the rule laid down in 
the first subparagraph of Article 15(2) 
of Regulation No 4253/88, according 
to which expenditure may not be con­
sidered eligible for assistance if 
incurred before the date on which the 
corresponding application reaches the 
Commission. The necessarily restrictive 
interpretation of such an exception 
means that the word 'may' in the 
second subparagraph of Article 15(2) 
of the regulation cannot be construed 
as granting more than a mere power to 
the Commission. 
(see para. 68) 
3. The administration may withdraw with 
retroactive effect an advantageous 
administrative act vitiated by illegality, 
provided that it does not infringe either 
the principle of legal certainty or that 
of the protection of legitimate expec­
tations. That possibility, which arises 
where the beneficiary of the act did not 
contribute to its illegality, applies a 
fortiori where, as in this case, the 
illegality is attributable to him. 
(see para. 90) 
I -868