Action brought on 8 March 2010 - Germany v Commission

(Case T-114/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, Agents, and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare null and void Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008);

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the aid granted by the ERDF for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1999 to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

In support of its claim, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

As its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the conditions for a financial correction under Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 ¹ are not met. In the applicant's view, that does not entitle the Commission to make financial corrections for administrative errors or perceived deficiencies in the administrative and monitoring systems. Further, it submits that even if administrative errors or perceived deficiencies in the administrative and monitoring systems under Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 were found, there should be no question of a financial correction. Firstly, 'irregularities', as alleged here by the Commission, can be corrected by financial corrections only if they have or have had a negative effect on the European Union's budget. In the view of the applicant, the measures objected to by the Commission have not had such an effect. Secondly, the applicant submits that in the case of a series of projects also objected to in this matter, there has been no breach of Community law.

The second plea in law alleges that the Commission was not entitled under Regulation No 4253/88 to apply flat-rate and extrapolated financial corrections. In addition, the applicant submits that the clear wording of Article 24 of that regulation relates to concrete situations and quantifiable amounts.

In its third plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality and claims that an extrapolation across States, on the basis of which one Member State is required to accept responsibility for the errors of another Member State, is not permitted.

____________

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).