Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Land Brandenburg against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-290/01)

    Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 November 2001 by the Land Brandenburg (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and T. Masing, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the decision contained in the Commission's debit note No 3240305411 of 13.9.2001 addressed to the applicant, relating to project No LIFE94/D/A211/00029/BND re Contract No B4-3200/94/730;

(order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is challenging a demand for repayment of Community grants totalling EUR 464 329.22 made by the Commission in the contested debit note.

The applicant and the Community concluded, within the framework of the LIFE project¹, a contract relating to the planned "Ecological revitalisation of the"Brandenburgische Elbtalaue': preparatory planning and Gnevsdorfer Werder sub-project". The Commission undertook to participate by making a contribution of 50% of the actual cost, but not exceeding ECU 1.5 million. The project thus promoted, which was designed to prepare the reinstatement of the embankment between the municipalities of Lenzen and Wustrow, was finished in 1998. Shortly before the end of the project, it became apparent that it would not be possible to reinstate the embankment as extensively as had been planned.

In February 2001 the Commission gave notice that, in its view, the applicant, in carrying out the project, had partly deviated from the contract and that, since the applicant had reduced the surface area of the project, the Commission was only able to co-finance the work done in the reduced area. By the contested decision, the Commission called upon the applicant to repay to it EUR 464 329.33.

The applicant asserts that the Community is not entitled to demand the repayment at issue by means of a Commission decision; instead, it is obliged to have recourse to law before the national courts. In addition, it maintains that the Commission has failed to comply with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons and has violated the applicant's rights of defence. Finally, the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of 15.7.1996 (OJ 1996 L 181, p. 1).