CELEX: C1999/333/70
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-199/99: Action brought on 8 September 1999 by Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

20.11.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 333/31
Action brought on 8 September 1999 by Sgaravatti Medit-                    under Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88. Never-
erranea S.r.l. against the Commission of the European                      theless, the Commission does not have the power to withdraw
                            Communities                                    the contribution on merely being notified that there have been
                                                                           infringements — it must first examine any evidence brought
                          (Case T-199/99)                                  to light. In the present case, however, there is no mention
                                                                           whatsoever in the reasons for the contested decision of any
                                                                           independent examination of the information gleaned from the
                          (1999/C 333/70)                                  Guardia di Finanza report, in view also of the documents
                                                                           submitted by the applicant.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Finally, the applicant also claims that the principle that
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  legitimate expectations should be protected was breached and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 that the statement of reasons was inadequate.
European Communities on 8 September 1999 by Sgaravatti
Mediterranea S.r.l., represented by Massimo Merola and Piero
A.M. Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert
1er.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Alberto Marti-
— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 1502 of 4 June                        nelli against the Commission of the European Communi-
     1999, or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the                                              ties
     subsidy to be repaid to the Commission to as low an
     amount as the Court may deem appropriate;
                                                                                                   (Case T-200/99)
— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (1999/C 333/71)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company in the present case contests Com-                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
mission Decision C (1999) 1502 of 4 June 1999 withdrawing
the financial contribution granted by way of Commission                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Decision No C(92) 2435 of 12 October 1992, on the granting                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
of EAGGF (Guidance Section) contribution within the meaning                European Communities on 9 September 1999 by Alberto
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88, in the context of                  Martinelli, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza
Project No 92.IT.06.015 entitled ‘Pilot project on techniques              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for returning areas to their natural state and nature-sensitive            Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
engineering in Mediterranean areas (Sardinia, Italy)’.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that the
following were infringed:
                                                                           — declare that the failure to draw up the applicant’s reports
— its right to a fair hearing, inasmuch as the defendant did                   for the periods 1993-1995 and 1995-1997 constitutes a
     not allow the applicant to submit its own comments on                     breach of administrative duty on the grounds set out in
     the evidence proving, in its view, that it had failed to fulfil           the application;
     its obligations under the decision to grant the contribution;
     and                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the official EUR 20 000 by
                                                                               way of making good the non-material damage suffered by
— the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains                    him as specified in the pre-litigation procedure;
     in this respect that it is clear from the applicable legislation
     that withdrawal of the contribution is justified only where           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
     a breach is of such seriousness that completion of the
     project is jeopardised or involves substantial changes
     regarding the nature itself of the project. However, in the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     present case, the irregularities concern essentially the costs
     relating to the staff employed in the relevant work. In any
     event, according to the applicant, the irregularities are of a        The official, a former official in the scientific and technical
     merely formal nature from which it may not be inferred                services of the Commission, has lodged a complaint in respect
     that fraud was intended.                                              of the failure to draw up and communicate reports for the
                                                                           periods 1993-1995 and 1995-1997.
The applicant states, inter alia, that the defendant has based
the contested decision to withdraw the subsidy mainly on the               In support of his arguments the applicant alleges infringement
finding by the Guardia di Finanza of evidence which ‘could                 of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of its implementing
amount to irregularities’, and withdrawn the contribution                  provisions.