«(EAGGF – Withdrawal of financial assistance – Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Error of assessment – Principle of proportionality – Reasonable duration – Statement of reasons)»

1.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national operations – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Commission obliged to demonstrate the existence of irregularities in the carrying out of the project – Beneficiary obliged to demonstrate that the project complied with the applicable provisions – Commission obliged to formulate the various complaints precisely in the letter opening the procedure – Duty of applicants for, and beneficiaries of, EAGGF assistance to provide information and act in good faith (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

2.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national operations – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Community and national co-financing of a national project – Legal context of the decision withdrawing the assistance – Community law – Justification on the ground that the project was carried out in accordance with national rules – Not permissible (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2))

3.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Commission's right to ask beneficiaries of Community financial assistance for additional information beyond that already supplied

4.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Commission obliged to give the beneficiary precise indications as to what supporting documents and additional explanations it must provide (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

5.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account or irregularities – Obligation on the Commission to verify whether an operation has actually been carried out – None (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

6.. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Withdrawal of financial assistance from the EAGGF on account of irregularities – Decision to withdraw assistance partially vitiated by errors of assessment – Annulment of the decision in its entirety – Commission's obligations in the light of the proportionality principle (Art. 233 EC; Council Regulations Nos 2052/88 and 4253/88, Art. 23)

7.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Procedure for withdrawing financial aid – Obligations of the Commission – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Criteria for assessment – Breach – Consequences (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 30 September 2003 (1)

((EAGGF – Withdrawal of financial assistance – Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Error of assessment – Principle of proportionality – Reasonable duration – Statement of reasons))

In Case T-196/01,

applicant,

v

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2001) 1284 of 8 June 2001 withdrawing the assistance granted to the Laboratory for Forest Genetics and Improvement of Ligneous Plant Species at Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) by Commission Decision C (96) 2542 of 25 September 1996 on the granting of assistance from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 in connection with programme No 93.EL.06.023, entitled Pilot project to accelerate the regeneration of forests devastated by fire in Greece,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber),

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

Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 1 July 2003,

gives the following

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

(a) First irregularity: Mr Panetsos's additional remuneration

The error of assessment

Breach of the obligation to state reasons

(b) Second irregularity: expenses relating to some of Mr Panetsos's activities

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

(a) Third irregularity: Mrs Babaliti's remuneration

Introduction

Detailed summary of the relevant facts

.

Analysis of the facts

─ The first complaint, alleging that the applicant did not submit a sufficiently detailed report to the Commission concerning Mrs Babaliti's activities

─ The second complaint, alleging that the activities described in the letter of 12 May 1999 did not correspond to Mrs Babaliti's duties as set out in her contracts of employment

(b) Sixth irregularity: Mrs Babaliti's duty travel expenses

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

I ─The tenth irregularity: costs connected with the use of office space

1. The contested decision

2. Arguments of the parties

3. Findings of the Court

1. The first part of the plea, alleging that withdrawal of the full amount of the assistance is disproportionate

2. The second part of the plea, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable duration

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

hereby:

Lenaerts

Azizi

Jaeger

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 September 2003.

H. Jung

K. Lenaerts

Registrar

President