FACT THAT NATIONAL LEGISLATION PROVIDES FOR THE SAME PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN A MATTER SUCH AS THE RECOVERY OF UNDULY-PAID COMMUNITY AIDS CANNOT , THEREFORE , BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THAT SAME LEGAL ORDER . MOREOVER , IT IS CLEAR FROM A STUDY OF THE NATIONAL LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES REGARDING THE REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND THE RECOVERY OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS WHICH HAVE BEEN UNDULY PAID BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES THAT THE CONCERN TO STRIKE A BALANCE , ALBEIT IN DIFFERENT WAYS , BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY ON THE ONE HAND AND THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION ON THE OTHER IS COMMON THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES .
31 WHERE THE RULES AND PROCEDURES APPLIED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IN THE RECOVERY OF COMMUNITY AIDS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE WHICH THEY APPLY IN COMPARABLE CASES CONCERNING PURELY NATIONAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS , THERE IS IN PRINCIPLE NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT THOSE RULES AND PROCEDURES ARE CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ' DUTY UNDER ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION NO 729/70 TO RECOVER SUMS IRREGULARLY GRANTED AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THEY REDUCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY LAW . THIS APPLIES IN PARTICULAR TO GROUNDS FOR EXCLUDING RECOVERY WHERE THESE ARE RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION ' S OWN CONDUCT AND IT CAN THEREFORE PREVENT THEM FROM OCCURRING .
32 IT SHOULD BE ADDED , HOWEVER , THAT THE PRINCIPLE THAT NATIONAL LEGISLATION MUST BE APPLIED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION COMPARED TO PURELY NATIONAL PROCEDURES OF THE SAME KIND REQUIRES THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY TO BE TAKEN FULLY INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE APPLICATION OF A PROVISION WHICH , LIKE THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 48 ( 2 ) OF THE VERWALTUNGSVERFAHRENSGESETZ , REQUIRES THE VARIOUS INTERESTS IN QUESTION , NAMELY ON THE ONE HAND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE REVOCATION OF THE MEASURE AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE PROTECTION OF THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED , TO BE WEIGHED UP AGAINST ONE ANOTHER BEFORE THE DECISION IS REVOKED .
33 THE ANSWER TO THE SEVENTH QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT PREVENT NATIONAL LAW FROM HAVING REGARD , IN EXLUDING THE RECOVERY OF UNDULY-PAID AIDS , TO SUCH CONSIDERATIONS AS THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION , THE LOSS OF UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT , THE PASSING OF A TIME-LIMIT OR THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION KNEW , OR WAS UNAWARE OWING TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON ITS PART , THAT IT WAS WRONG IN GRANTING THE AIDS IN QUESTION , PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN ARE THE SAME AS FOR THE RECOVERY OF PURELY NATIONAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE TAKEN FULLY INTO ACCOUNT .
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THE RECOVERY OF UNDULY-PAID AIDS
34 BY ITS FOURTH QUESTION THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT AM MAIN SEEKS TO ASCERTAIN THE RULES REGARDING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES WHERE UNDULY-PAID AIDS ARE RECOVERED .
35 AS THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT IN ITS OBSERVATIONS