Case T-375/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  — Azienda Agricola le Canne v Commission
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), aquaculture

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/37

Lastly, the applicants claim that by approving the NAP notwith-
standing the facts that it does not make express provision for
undertakings to make appropriate preparations for the transfer
of allowances or pooling of installations, that it provides for
reference periods for the transfer of residual allowances other
than a five-year period and that it imposes unjustifiable restric-
tions on the pooling of installations and does not make provi-
sion for the surrender of cancelled emission allowances, the
Commission infringed Articles 11, 12, 13 and 28 of Directive
2003/87 EC.

(1) Commission Decision of 25 May 2005 on the national allocation
plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances noti-
fied by Italy in accordance with Directive 2003/87 of the European
Parliament and Council [C(2005)1527 fin, OJ C 226 of 15.09.2005,
p. 2].

(2) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas
trading within the Community and
amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275 of 25 October
2005, p. 32).

emission allowance

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — the Italian
Republic v the Commission

(Case T-373/05)

(2005/C 296/74)

Language of the case: Italian

tion of which was given on that date, insofar as it makes an
overall
tobacco aid scheme
amounting to 5 % of the expenditure declared in 2001 and
2002 for the marketing year 2000.

financial adjustment

to the

In support of its action the Italian government argues:

1) that Decision C(2005) 2756 of 20 July 2005 contains an
inadequate statement of reasons in relation to Article 253
of the Treaty and that the Commission has misused its
powers by distorting the facts in that the contested decision
makes an overall adjustment to the aid granted for tobacco
production in the marketing year 2000 without providing
an appropriately detailed statement of reasons as to the
rules allegedly infringed or indeed any factual grounds that
could justify the decision;

2) that Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (1) was
infringed and misapplied in that the decision to make an
overall adjustment to the aid granted for tobacco production
in the marketing year 2000 lacks the detailed statement of
grounds which is a necessary requirement of that provision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160, 26/6/1999,
p. 103).

Action brought on 7 October 2005 — Azienda Agricola le
Canne v Commission

Parties

Applicant(s): the Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili,
Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant(s): the Commission of the European Communities

Parties

(Case T-375/05)

(2005/C 296/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Italy)
Applicant(s): Azienda Agricola le Canne (Porto Viro,
(represented by: Giuseppe Carraio and Francesco Mazzonetto,
lawyers)

annul Commission decision C(2005)2756 of 20 July 2005
insofar as it imposes an overall adjustment on the tobacco aid
scheme operated by the Italian Republic amounting to 5 % of
the expenditure declared in 2001 and 2002 for the 2000
harvest and order the Commission to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

Defendant(s): Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian government has brought an action before the Court
of First
Instance of the European Communities challenging
Commission Decision C(2005) 2756 of 20 July 2005, notifica-

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— declare the contested Commission Decision C(2005)2939
of 26 July 2005 null and void insofar as it reduces the aid
granted to Azienda Agricola Le Canne s.r.l. by Decision
C(90)1923/99 of 30 October 1990 pursuant to Regulation
(EEC) No 4028/86;

C 296/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

— order the Commission to pay damages to make good the
loss allegedly suffered in an amount not
less than the
portion of the subsidies not yet paid, with interest at the
rate charged to the applicant by the bank on the whole
balance of the sums originally owed on the basis of Deci-
sion C(90)1923/99 of 30 October 1990, to run from the
date of
the annulled decision (27 October 1995) until
payment of the total aid owed;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2005)2939 of 26 July 2005 which reduces aid granted under
Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 for the project entitled: 'Moderni-
sation of the aquaculture production unit in Rosolina (Veneto)'.
The applicant relies on four pleas in support of its claims:

1. By the first plea, it is submitted, as a preliminary issue, that,
as regards the investigation of the alleged irregularities, the
administrative action taken by the Commission to reduce
the subsidy already granted for co-financing is time-barred.
is submitted in that connection that Article 3(1) of
It
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18
December 1995 on the protection of the European Commu-
nities' financial interests was infringed. (1)

2. By its second plea the applicant alleges that the Commission
breached its obligation to implement the ruling in the judg-
ment of 5 March 2002, (2) in that, although it was entitled,
in the new decision intended to replace the annulled deci-
sion of 11 July 2000, to review the whole matter, it had to
to the procedural
do so within the limits and subject
requirements of the complaint of 23 November 1999 which
is still open and has not been closed as a result of the annul-

ment of the above decision. However, it was not entitled to
submit further complaints not raised before that time.

Moreover, the Commission, while recognising implicitly that
most of the amount reduced in the previous, now annulled,
decision reducing aid was in fact due, did not acknowledge
that default interest was due on the amounts unlawfully
withheld.

3. The third plea raises a complaint that Article 44(1) of the
cited Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 does not include the
irregularity of which the applicant
is accused in the
contested decision among the conditions, listed exhaustively
therein, for the reduction of aid: that is to say, the irregu-
larity consisting in the fact that in the course of carrying
out the work eligible for aid the contracting undertaking
acquired a holding in the capital of the company awarded
the contract.

4. By its fourth plea, which alleges breach of the principles of
equal treatment, proportionality and reasonableness, and the
principle of free movement of capital, the applicant submits
in the alternative that the criterion used by the Commission
to calculate the contested reduction was arbitrary, in that it
applied the same reduction indiscriminately to all
the
periods considered, without taking account of the fact that
the percentage of the holding of the contracting undertaking
in the company capital of the beneficiary changed gradually
over time.

(1) OJ 1995 L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1.
(2) Case T-241/00 Azienda Agricola Le Canne v Commission [2002] ECR

II-1251.