Case T-444/07

Centre de promotion de l’emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM)

v

Commission of the European Communities

(ESF – Withdrawal of financial assistance – OLAF report)

Summary of the Judgment

1.      Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2.      Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Scope

3.      Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(1) and (2))

4.      Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions

5.      Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing

1.      In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the essential matters of fact and law relied on should be stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between that conduct, the damage which it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage. In the absence of any indication on the part of the applicant, it is not for the Court to make assumptions and ascertain whether there is a causal link between the conduct complained of and the injury alleged. Hence, any further indication regarding this link must be dismissed as being out of time.

(see paras 32, 33, 36 and 37)

2.      The principle of observance of the rights of the defence requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views. Furthermore, the rights of the defence are infringed by reason of a procedural irregularity only in so far as the irregularity has a concrete effect on the ability of the undertakings concerned to defend themselves. Consequently, non-compliance with rules in force the purpose of which is to protect the rights of the defence can vitiate an administrative procedure only if it is shown that the latter could have had a different outcome if the rules had been observed.

(see paras 51, 53)

3.      Given the very nature of financial aid granted by the Community, the obligation to comply with the financial conditions indicated in the decision granting the aid constitutes one of the essential duties of the beneficiary, in the same way as the obligation actually to carry out the project, and is therefore a precondition for the award of Community aid. In that context, Article 24(1) and (2) of Regulation No 4253/88, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation 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, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, must be interpreted as authorising the Commission to withdraw the financial assistance allocated in the event of infringement of the financial conditions set out in the award decision.

(see paras 92, 101)

4.      Three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively in order for a claim to entitlement to the protection of legitimate expectations to be well founded. First, precise, unconditional and consistent assurances originating from authorised and reliable sources must have been given to the person concerned by the Community authorities. Second, those assurances must be such as to give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom they are addressed. Third, the assurances given must comply with the applicable rules.

(see para. 126)

5.      With regard to monitoring of compliance with their obligations by beneficiaries of Community financial aid, it is normal for an inspection instigated because of new evidence that has given rise to suspicion of irregularities in connection with certain projects to be more detailed and to produce results that differ from those of a previous routine inspection undertaken in the absence of any suspicion. Consequently, the fact that the enquiry by the European Anti-Fraud Office uncovered irregularities which had not been detected during an audit carried out by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities does not in any way constitute inconsistency and cannot affect the lawfulness of a decision based on the results of that enquiry.

(see para. 135)