Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1997:173
Date: 1997-11-07
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: Common structural policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment
Fisheries— Common structural policy— Development of aquaculture and establishment ofpro­
tected marine areas— Community financial aid— Commission decision declaring certain expen­
diture incurred by the recipient to be ineligible— Infringement of the audi alteram partem prin­
ciple — Failure to consult the Standing Committee on the Fishing Industry — None —
Conditions
(Council Regulation No 4028/86, Art. 44(1); Commission Regulation No 1116/88, Art. 7)
II - 2055
SUMMARY — CASE T-218/95
In the context of Community financial aid
granted under Regulation No 4028/86 on
Community measures to improve and adapt
structures in the fisheries and aquaculture
sector, in respect of modernization works
and the establishment of fish-farming instal­
lations, a Commission decision declaring cer­
tain expenditure to be ineligible on the
ground that major modifications had been
made to the project originally approved,
without prior notification, does not infringe
the principle of the right to be heard where
the recipient of financial aid was in a pos­
ition to explain, prior to adoption of the
decision, the reasons for non-compliance
with the conditions laid down, and where
the requirements stipulated in that regard in
Article 7 of Regulation No 1116/88 were
essentially observed.
Moreover, inasmuch as the Commission was
properly entitled to conclude that the expen­
diture deemed ineligible could not be taken
into consideration, since it did not come
within the terms of the project approved,
such a decision does not constitute a decision
to reduce, for the purposes of Article 44(1)
of Regulation No 4028/86, the aid originally
granted to the recipient, but in actual fact
merely notes that a part of the expenditure
for which the recipient claims payment does
not relate to the project as originally
accepted, with the result that the Commis­
sion was not required to consult the Stand­
ing Committee on the Fishing Industry, as
provided for in the abovementioned provi­
sion.
II - 2056