Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl anteriormente Massalombarda Colombani SpA contra Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Celex Number61996TJ0216
ECLIECLI:EU:T:1999:252
Docket NumberT-216/96
Date12 October 1999
Procedure TypeRecurso de anulación - infundado
CourtGeneral Court (European Union)
EUR-Lex - 61996A0216 - EN 61996A0216

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 October 1999. - Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl formerly Massalombarda Colombani SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Withdrawal of financial assistance - Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Principle of the legality of the penalty imposed - Legitimate expectations - Abuse of power - Principle of proportionality - Statement of reasons. - Case T-216/96.

European Court reports 1999 Page II-03139


Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

1 Economic and social cohesion - Structural assistance - Community funding for national projects - Applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF financial aid required to provide information and to act in good faith

2 Community law - Interpretation - Acts of the institutions - Discrepancy between the wording of a provision and the title thereof - Rule that provisions are to be construed in such a way that all the terms employed serve a useful purpose

3 Economic and social cohesion - Structural assistance - Community funding - EAGGF financial aid discontinued because of irregularities - Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2))

4 Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Structural reform - Common measures - Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed - EAGGF financial aid discontinued for breach of fundamental obligations

(Council Regulation No 355/77)

Summary

1 Applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF financial aid are required to satisfy themselves that they are submitting to the Commission reliable information which is not liable to mislead it; otherwise the system of controls and evidence set up to determine whether the conditions for granting aid are fulfilled cannot function properly. In the absence of reliable information, projects which do not fulfil the conditions required could become the subject of aid. It follows that the obligation on applicants for, and beneficiaries of, aid to provide information and act in good faith is inherent in the EAGGF aid system and essential for its effective functioning.

2 Where there is a discrepancy between the wording of a provision and the title thereof, both must be construed in such a manner that all the terms employed serve a useful purpose.

3 Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments must be construed as meaning that the Commission may discontinue aid from the EAGGF in the event of an irregularity, in particular where a significant change to the operation affecting its nature or the conditions governing its execution is involved, for which the Commission's prior approval has not been sought.

4 The infringement of obligations whose observance is of fundamental importance to the proper functioning of a Community system may be penalised by forfeiture of a right conferred by Community legislation, such as entitlement to aid.

The fact that a beneficiary has failed to comply with its undertaking not to start work on the project in question before receipt of the application for aid by the Commission, failed to inform the Commission of this and, in response to a request for information, forwarded a copy which was not consistent with the original of the contract for the sale of a machine referred to in the subsidised project constitutes a serious breach of fundamental obligations justifying discontinuance of financial aid from the EAGGF granted pursuant to Regulation No 355/77 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed.

Parties

In Case T-216/96,

Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly Massalombarda Colombani SpA, a company incorporated under Italian law, established in Massa Lombarda (Italy), represented by Marina Averani and Andrea Pisaneschi, of the Sienna bar, and Paolo de Caterini, of the Rome bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13 B, avenue Guillaume,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Massimo Moretto, of the Venice bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C (96) 2760 of 3 October 1996 discontinuing the financial aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund granted to the company Massalombarda Colombani SpA by Commission Decision C (90) 950/356 of 29 June 1990, and, in so far as is necessary, any measure of the Commission related to that Decision, in particular working document VI/1216/86-IT fixing the maximum amount of aid which may be granted from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund under Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed (OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

(Third Chamber),

composed of: M Jaeger, President, K Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges,

Registrar: B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing of 11 March 1999

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

The relevant legislation

1 Articles 1(3) and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed (OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1, `Regulation No 355/77') provide that the Commission may grant aid for common measures by financing, through the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (`EAGGF'), projects which form part of specific programmes which have been drawn up beforehand by the Member States and approved by the Commission and which are designed to develop or rationalise the treatment, processing or marketing of agricultural products.

2 The second recital in the preamble to that regulation states that `the measures to be taken in this field are intended to achieve the objectives set out in Article 39(1)( a) of the EC Treaty [now Article 33(1)(a) EC]'. The fourth recital states that `to be eligible for Community financing, projects must permit in particular the achievement of improvement and rationalisation of processing and marketing structures in respect of agricultural products and of a lasting beneficial effect on agriculture'. Finally, the seventh recital states that `in order to ensure that beneficiaries observe the conditions imposed at the time aid from the [EAGGF] is granted, a procedure should be laid down for an effective check and for the possible suspension, reduction or discontinuation of aid from the [EAGGF]'.

3 Under Article 6 of Regulation No 355/77, for the purposes of Article 1 of that regulation `project' means any project involving public, semi-public or private material investment relating wholly or in part to buildings and/or equipment for [...] rationalising or developing storage, market preparation, preservation, treatment or processing of agricultural products; [...].

4 Article 19(2) of that regulation states:

`Throughout the period during which aid is granted from the [EAGGF], the authority or agency appointed for that purpose by the Member State concerned shall, at the request of the Commission, forward to it all supporting documents which are of relevance in proving that the financial or other conditions laid down for each project have been fulfilled. The Commission may, if necessary, carry out an on-the-spot check.

After it has consulted the [EAGGF] committee on the financial aspects the Commission may decide, [...] to suspend, reduce or discontinue aid from the [EAGGF]:

- if the project has not been carried out as planned, or

- if certain of the conditions laid down have not been fulfilled [...]'.

5 Applications for aid must contain the information and documents specified in the annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2515/85 of 23 July 1985 on applications for aid from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF for projects to improve the conditions under which agricultural and fish products are processed and marketed (OJ 1985 L 243, p. 1, `Regulation No 2515/85'). Those annexes include, firstly, models of forms to be completed by the applicants for aid and, secondly, explanatory notes to assist applicants in submitting their applications.

6 Point 5.3 of the `Explanatory notes for each heading' in Annex A to that regulation states: `projects begun before the application reaches the Commission cannot qualify for aid'. Those instructions relate to a undertaking which the applicant must enter into on the following terms: `We undertake not to start work on the project before receipt of application for aid by the EAGGF Guidance Section'.

7 In 1986 the EAGGF drew up working document VI/1216/86-IT fixing the maximum amount of aid which may be granted from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF under Regulation No 355/77 (`the working document'). Point B.1 thereof lists the operations which are completely ineligible for aid. Under paragraph 5, operations or work which are started before the application is submitted are ineligible for aid, with the exception of:

`[...]

(b) the purchase of machines, equipment and building materials, including metal skeletons and prefabricated components (order and...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
3 cases
  • Astipesca SL v Commission of the European Communities.
    • European Union
    • General Court (European Union)
    • 17 October 2002
    ...the system of controls and evidence set up to determine whether the conditions for granting aid are fulfilled cannot function properly (Case T-216/96 Conserve Italia v Commission [1999] ECR II-3139, paragraph 71.) Recently, the Court of Justice noted the importance of compliance with that o......
  • Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl v Commission of the European Communities.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 24 January 2002
    ...against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 October 1999 in Case T-216/96 Conserve Italia v Commission [1999] ECR II-3139, seeking to have that judgment set aside,the other party to the proceedings being:Commission of the European Co......
  • Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 28 October 1999
    ......' (paragraph 22, my italics). (15) - On the same point, the Court of First Instance has recently given a judgment. In Conserve Italia (Case T-216/96 Conserve Italia ex Massolombarda Colombani v Commission [1999] ECR II-3139) that Court considered that Article 24 of the coordination regul......