This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/094/113
Judgment of the court of first instance (second chamber) of 28 January 2004 in Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl v Commission of the European Communities
Judgment of the court of first instance (second chamber) of 28 January 2004 in Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl v Commission of the European Communities
Judgment of the court of first instance (second chamber) of 28 January 2004 in Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl v Commission of the European Communities
ELT C 94, 17.4.2004, p. 39–39
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
17.4.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 94/39 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (SECOND CHAMBER)
of 28 January 2004
in Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(EAGGF - Withdrawal of financial assistance - Articles 24 and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)
(2004/C 94/113)
Language of the case: Italian
In Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl, established at Monte Vidon Combatte (Italy), represented by W. Massucci, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially L. Visaggio and M. Moretto and subsequently C. Cattabriga and M. Moretto) — application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2001) 1274 of 6 June 2001 withdrawing the assistance granted to Euragri Srl by Commission Decision C (92) 3214 of 3 December 1992 concerning grant of a contribution from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, pursuant to 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), in connection with Project No 92.IT.06.069 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project for the use of new “Endovena” (intravenous) technology on fruit trees’ – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 January 2004, in which it:
1. |
Dismissed the application. |
2. |
Ordered the applicant to pay the costs, including those incurred in connection with the application for interim measures. |