Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di Napoli against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-272/02)

    (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 4 September 2002 by the Municipality of Naples, represented by Massimo Merola, Claudio Tesauro, Giuseppe Tarallo and Edoardo Barone, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the decision of the Commission notified in a letter of 11 June 2002 concerning ERDF action No 66 and the correction of the accounts relating to ERDF action No 67

(order the Commission to pay the expenditure incurred by the Comune di Napoli in these proceedings, including in respect of lawyers' fees.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of 11 June 2002 closing ERDF file 85.05.03.066 (hereafter "ERDF No 66") - "Metropolitan link between Museo and Dante" - by which the European Commission reduced the amount of the contribution initially granted for completion of the project in question and implicitly rejecting the request for adjustment of the balance relating to earlier related ERDF action No 85.05.03.067 (hereafter "ERDF No 67") - "Rail link - Naples Town Centre". The contested decision accepted a level of expenditure lower than the amount initially provided for and actually incurred, and accordingly reduced the contribution initially agreed by the defendant.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the principle that legitimate expectations be protected and of fairness, as well as failure to provide reasons.

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission:

(gave rise, by its own previous conduct, to legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant regarding the possibility that it might receive the full agreed amount, since the work covered by the intervention had been completed as planned, and the eligible expenditure ( actually incurred and properly accounted for ( were on the whole not less than the initial planned investment.

(rejected the request for adjustment of the balance of ERDF intervention No 67 and reduced the contribution provided for in the context of ERDF No 66 on the ground that the eligible expenditure was of a lower amount (in that it was erroneously already attributed to the new intervention), despite the fact the expenditure incurred was on the whole greater and the acknowledgment, by the defendant, that the work had been completed in accordance with the project.

____________