Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 24 September 2002 by Associazione Consorzi Tessili ( ASCONTEX against Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-290/02)
(Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 September 2002 by Associazione Consorzi Tessili ( ASCONTEX, whose registered office is at Milan (Italy), represented by Patrick Mbaya and Laurent Denis, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(annul the decision of 12 July 2002 withdrawing financial assistance from the applicant for the ASCONTEX IBEX EURESPRIT project;
(declare that the advance of EUR 200 000 is not to be repaid;
(annul in part, in the alternative, the decision of 12 July 2002 withdrawing financial assistance from the applicant for the ASCONTEX IBEX EURESPRIT project;
(declare that the advance of EUR 200 000 is to be repaid to the Commission only after the latter adopts a decision on the eligibility of the expenditure submitted and on the proportion of that not used by the applicant;
(order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is a member of the Italian association of textile manufacturers. It received from the Commission financial assistance for an international salon exhibition in the textile and clothing sector. The salon was to be held in Capri.
In the contested decision, the Commission withdraws its financial assistance and seeks repayment of the advance already paid.
In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges, first, breach of the duty to provide reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission never carried out the investigation required under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88,
1 which is applicable in the present case. Thus, the Commission did not invite Italy to submit its comments despite the fact that financial assistance was granted with the support of the Italian Government. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to reply to its proposals to make changes to the project. The applicant further states that the Commission has not adopted a decision on the eligibility of the expenditure incurred by it in relation to the project. According to the applicant, the Commission was in full possession of all the information in that regard.
The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the Commission has not challenged the eligibility of the expenditure incurred by the applicant.
The last plea in law put forward by the applicant alleges breach of the principle of legal certainty. According to the applicant, the Commission has rejected the expenditure claimed by the applicant for lack of certification whereas it had never made any such observation previously. Moreover, the applicant states that certification for expenditure must be submitted with the final report for the project.
____________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