# C_2007095EN.01005401.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/54

---

Action brought on 12 March 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission

(Case T-74/07)

(2007/C 95/108)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant): Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumme and C. Blaschke, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

Applicant):

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 7271 final of 27 December 2006 on the reduction of the period of the financial contribution of the European Regional Development Fund granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2271 to the Operational Programme under the Community initiative INTERREG II in the Saarland, Lorraine and Western Palatinate regions in Germany, |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 7271 final of 27 December 2006 on the reduction of the period of the financial contribution of the European Regional Development Fund granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2271 to the Operational Programme under the Community initiative INTERREG II in the Saarland, Lorraine and Western Palatinate regions in Germany,

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the period of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund to the Operational Programme for North-Rhine Westphalia under the Community initiative INTERREG II in the Saarland, Lorraine and Western Palatinate regions.

In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), on the ground that it contains no provisions allowing for a reduction of that kind. It argues in particular that the deviations from the indicative financing plan do not represent a significant alteration of the plan. The applicant claims that, even if the plan were to have been significantly altered, the Commission should agree to that alteration.

1

In addition, the applicant maintains that insufficient reasons were given for the reduction. In particular, it claims that there is no justification for the failure to apply the rule of flexibility in the ‘Guidelines on the financial closure of operational measures (1994 — 1999) of the structural funds ’(SEC(1999) 1316).

If it were to be accepted that provisions allowing a reduction exist, the applicant argues that defendant failed to exercise the discretion afforded to it in relation to the specific programme. According to the applicant, the Commission should have considered whether a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund contribution appeared reasonable.

Lastly, the applicant claims that there was an infringement of the principle of partnership.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) 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 (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).

1

---