CELEX: C1999/226/77
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-143/99: Action brought on 12 June 1999 by Hortiplant, S.A.T. against Commission of the European Communities

C 226/44              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.8.1999
Action brought on 12 June 1999 by Hortiplant, S.A.T.                    In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that:
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        — Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (2) was misapplied
                                                                             in respect of the applicant’s actings: first, in that there
                        (Case T-143/99)                                      were no irregularities of the kind complained of by the
                                                                             Commission, secondly, because that provision does not
                                                                             provide a proper legal basis for a withdrawal of the type
                        (1999/C 226/77)                                      being contested, since its wording only refers to reduction
                                                                             or suspension of aid;
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       — infringement of the rights of the defence in as much as
                                                                             procedural requirements were not in the least observed
                                                                             during the proceedings, particularly in view of the criminal-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    law consequences to which they could give rise. First, the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Commission’s letter of 3 April 1995 which, in the
European Communities on 12 June 1999 by Hortiplant, S.A.T.,                  applicant’s view, could be regarded as a statement of
whose registered office is at Amposta, Tarragona, (Spain),                   objections, was vitiated by its lack of clarity in its
represented by Concepción Fernändez Vicién and Eva Contre-                  accusations of alleged irregularities. Furthermore, the Com-
ras Ynzenga, of the Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78 Avenue d’Au-                    mission, again according to the applicant, took into
derghem, 1040 Brussels.                                                      consideration a number of documents which had been
                                                                             sent to it by mistake, not least because it had not stated
                                                                             that the justification provided in respect of the staff
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  expenditure was inadequate. Moreover, there is no evidence
                                                                             that the defendant followed the procedure provided for in
                                                                             Article 24(1) of Regulation 4253/88 for suspension or
— annul the Commission’s decision of 4 March 1999 with-                      reduction of aid.
     drawing the aid granted to Hortiplant, S.A.T.;
— in the alternative, annul in part that decision and pro-              Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
     portionally reduce the aid granted by Commission Decision          proportionality and the obligation of providing a statement of
     C (92) 3125 of 4 March 1999;                                       the reasons on which a measure is based.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                            laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2052/88, as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ 1988
                                                                            L 374, p. 25).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                            laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
The present action has been brought against the decision of                 different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
the Commission of 4 March 1999 withdrawing the aid granted                  operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
to the applicant undertaking by virtue of Commission Decision               existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).
C (92) 3125 of 4 March 1999 relating to aid granted by the
EAGGF Guidance Section, pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 (1), for project no 9 ES.06.022 ‘Initiative
consisting in a pilot project to demonstrate a new high
efficiency production system for nurseries: application to
ornamental and woodland species’.
This project was born of research carried out by the applicant
which showed improved vegetative and productive behaviour               Action brought on 15 June 1999 by Rui Teixeira Neves
in seedlings obtained in a new type of container, known as a            against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
‘Fifton Plant’ and which appeared particularly suited to the
production of ornamental and woodland tree and shrub
species which required specific soil depths in order to take                                       (Case T-146/99)
root and develop properly.
                                                                                                   (1999/C 226/78)
The reason for the contested decision is based on a number of
financial and accounting irregularities which, in the applicant’s
view, took place at the drafting stage of the aforementioned                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
project; said irregularities concern, in particular, its co-
financing by the undertaking Resteya, and also the justification
of certain staff expenditure and of the invoices paid to the            An action against the Court of Justice of the European
undertakings Gentforsa and Cedarcliff.                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance