Action brought on 15 October 2008 - Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-465/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 August 2008 on offsetting the Commission's claims against its debts, BUG/C3 D(2008) 10.5- 3956;

Order the Commission to pay the Czech Republic the amount offset of EUR 9 354 130.93 and the corresponding interest for late payment;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Czech Republic, by this action brought pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, seeks annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 August 2008 on offsetting the Commission's claims against its debts, BUG/C3 D(2008) 10.5- 3956. The Commission on issuing the contested decision acted pursuant to Article 73(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, ¹ as amended. By the contested decision, the Commission offset its claim against the Czech Republic, for repayment of funds from the PHARE T9106, CS9203 and CZ9302 revolving funds, amounting to EUR 9 354 130.93. The Commission's claim was offset against the Czech Republic's claim to two interim payments on two operational programmes financed from the structural fund amounting to EUR 10 814 475.41. The Czech Republic thus requests that the offset payments be made good.

The contested decision is invalid, since the Commission exceeded its powers by issuing it, in that the decision in question was adopted on an incorrect legal basis.

Even if it were accepted that, in the present circumstances, Regulation No 1605/2002 could be used, the contested decision is invalid on the ground that it was issued in breach of the conditions laid down for offsetting by that regulation, or, to be more precise, Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, ² which implements Regulation No 1605/2002 and lays down the offsetting procedure.

Lastly, the contested decision is invalid on the ground that it contains no statement of reasons.

____________

¹ - OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

² - Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.