7.8.1999 EN C 226/21 Official Journal of the European Communities
3. Must the fees paid for such services be calculated in the — C(1999)544, which withdraws the assistance granted
light of the cost involved in providing the service? to Floreurop - Productos Florestais Lda by Commission
Decision C(96)2211 of 13 September 1996 concern-ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-4. Are such costs those incurred in taking the action and inbution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88maintaining the facilities necessary for taking it?for project No 94.PT.06.015, entitled ‘Demonstration
Project to accelerate agricultural diversification inMadeira by introducing products intended for the 5. May the criterion of the economic benefit which the user
uharmaceutical industry (tea tree oil)’ obtains from the action taken be applied in calculating the
amount payable for such action?
to the extent to which they are addressed to the Portuguese
Republic;
(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas and principal arguments
— Breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 253 EC);
— Infringement of Article 23(1) third indent and Article 24
of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) in that, on a correctAction brought on 1 June 1999 by the Portugueseinterpretation and application of those provisions to theRepublic against the Commission of the European Com-projects in question, only the beneficiary undertakingsmunitiesshould be responsible for repaying the amounts received:
the assistance in question was granted and controlled
directly and solely by the European Commission without(Case C-208/99)any involvement of the national management and moni-
toring bodies. Nor can the fact that the national authoritiessimply accompanied the Commission inspectors be regard-(1999/C 226/34)ed as participation in the control process. The Member
State cannot be held responsible for irregularities arising
in the implementation of such projects nor can it be theAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-addressee of decisions requiring the recovery of funds usedties was brought before the Court of Justice on 1 June 1999improperly.by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Luı ´s Fernandes,
Angelo Seiça Neves and Paula Fraga ˜o, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese
Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer, Luxembourg.(1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25.
(2) OJ L 394 of 31.12.1988, p. 14.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Uphold this application and therefore annul the following
decisions:
— C(1999)543, which withdraws the assistance granted
to Belgravia Lda b, Commission Decision C(93)3403of 26 November 1993 concerning the grant of anAction brought on 4 June 1999 by the Commission of theEAGGF, Guarantee Section, contribution underEuropean Communities against the Italian RepublicCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (
1) for project
No 93.PT.06.023, entitled ‘Demonstration Project forintroduction of the cultivation of sea kale’,(Case C-212/99)
— C(1999)545, which withdraws the assistance granted(1999/C 226/35)to Ordinal-Gesta ˜o de Investimentos Lda by Com-
mission Decision C(93)1606 of 21 June 1993 concern-ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri- An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 1999 bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88
for project No 93.PT.06.002, entitled ‘Pilot and Dem- by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Pieter Jan Kuijper and Enrico Traversa, Legal Advisers acting onstration Project for turning to account three Mediter-
ranean plants (fennel, balm and parsley) through the as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Go ´mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. extraction of essential oils for the agro-food industry’,