Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola "Le Canne" srl against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-276/03)

    Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola "Le Canne" srl, represented by G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty, that, by failing to adopt all the measures and to take all the steps required to comply with the judgment of 5 March 2002 (Case T-241/00) of the Court of First Instance, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;

(order the Commission to pay damages which the applicant alleges it has sustained in a sum not less than the unpaid amount of the subsidy, together with interest at the rate charged to the applicant by the banking system from the date of the last part payment of the subsidy to the date when the balance due is paid;

(order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action was brought because of a reduction in the amount of the contribution paid by the Community to help finance various works of modernisation and organisation of the applicant's fish farms. The reduction was annulled by judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-10/98 P. ¹ By judgment of 5 March 2002 ²a further decision reducing the amount of the contribution was annulled on the ground that the Commission had failed to assess whether the project actually carried out could be regarded as productive and consistent with initial plans.

The applicant asserts that after the second judgment had acquired the authority of a final decision the Commission endeavoured to conduct the necessary assessment, making an inspection in loco. However, after making its inspection on 16 and 17 September 2002 the Commission failed to express a position and deferred sine dine payment of the balance of the subsidy.

The applicant argues in this connection that, in this case, the facts of the dispute, which dates back to 1995, are brought before the Community court for a third time, yet the Commission has still not properly completed what it ought to have done in 1995, namely to conduct an assessment of whether ascertained variations from the object, structure and purpose of the original subsidised project are in conformity.

____________

¹ - ECR I-6831.

² - Case T-241/00 ECR II-1251.