Action brought on 24 November 2010 - Spain v Commission

(Case T-540/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul Commission Decision C (2010) 6154 of 13 December reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following projects

'Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-A' (CCI No 2001.EC.16.C.P.T. 005)

'Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo X-B (Avinyonet del Penedés-Sant Sadurní d'Anoia' (CCI No 2001.EC.16.C.P.T. 008)

'Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo XI-A and XI-B (Sant Sadurní d'Anoia-Gelida) (CCI NO 2001.ES.16.C.P.T.009) and

'Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid- Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-C' (CCI NO 2001.ES.16.C.P.T.0010)

alternatively, partially annul the decision in so far as it refers to the corrections applied to the amendments arising from exceeding the noise thresholds (Subsection IX-A), the change of PGOU of the Ayuntamiento de Santa Oliva (Subsection IX-A) and the differences in the geotechnical conditions (Subsections X-B. IX-A , XI-B and IX-C), reducing the amount of the correction by EUR 2 348 201.96;

in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the aid from the Cohesion Fund initially granted to the phase of the projects mentioned above, because of alleged irregularities in the application of the law on public procurement.

The Kingdom of Spain takes the view the decision should be annulled on three different grounds:

Infringement of Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94¹ as the Commission failed to take a decision within the period of three months from the date of the hearing.

Infringement, by reason of incorrect application, of Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38² since contracting for additional services is a matter conceptually distinct from the amendment of a contract which is being executed laid down by Spanish public procurement law, so that that amendment does not fall within the scope of Directive 93/38.

In the alternative, infringement of Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38 on the ground that all the requirements were fulfilled in order for the Spanish authorities to adjudicate by way of the negotiation procedure without advertising the additional works carried out in the four phases of the project affected by the correction.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1).

² - Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 82, p. 40).