Action brought on 4 July 2008 - Germany v Commission

(Case T-265/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region Thuringia in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994 - 1999);

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision, the Commission, reduced the financial assistance from the ERDF for the operational programme in the Objective 1 region Thuringia in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994 - 1999).

The applicant relies on four grounds in support of its action.

Firstly, it complains that the Commission did not correctly assess important elements of fact in connection with priority axis 2.1 of the operational programme at issue (support measures for small and medium-sized enterprises: support for productive investment).

Second, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88¹ since no irregularities within the meaning of that provision have occurred. In that connection, it argues, in particular, that that provision does not permit the Commission to make financial corrections for administrative errors or allegedly inadequate systems of administration or supervision.

In addition, the applicant, argues that the Commission is not permitted to carry out extrapolated financial corrections under Regulation No 4253/88, since Article 24 of that provision refers to concrete cases and assistance which may be expressed in figures and not to hypothetical conclusions of systematic misadministration drawn on the basis of an administrative error which has been discovered.

Finally, the applicant complains that there is an infringement of Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 even if it is accepted that extrapolated financial corrections are permitted inasmuch as the extrapolations are erroneous. It argues in that connection that the Commission should not have emphasised extrapolations based on the analysis of weak points by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, that the Commission is partly to blame for the matters of which it complains and that the extrapolations at issue infringe the principle of proportionality.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) 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 (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).