35The Commission considers that because of that difference between the rules applicable during the various programming periods it is impossible, in the circumstances such as those of this case, for beneficiaries to be recognised as having capacity to challenge decisions to reduce assistance, in accordance with paragraphs 46 to 48 of the judgment in Case T-450/93 Lisrestal and Others v Commission [1994] ECR II-1177, upheld by the Court of Justice in Case C-32/95 P Commission v Lisrestal [1996] ECR I-5373. During the programming period 1984 to 1988 management was therefore, essentially, provided by the Commission direct. In contrast, under Regulation No 1787/84 which formed the basis for the decision to grant assistance, the Commission's role was that of monitor. Since the Commission no longer plays any part in actions for recovery brought by Member States and since, as the Court of First Instance has pointed out in paragraphs 47 and 48 of Coillte Teoranta, actions for recovery are based on domestic law and are not an automatic consequence of decisions to exclude certain expenditure from Community financing, the analysis in Lisrestal and Others v Commission does not hold good for decisions adopted on the basis of Regulation No 4253/88 and concerning projects financed by the structural funds.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.