# C_2015311EN.01005701.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/57

---

Action brought on 22 July 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case T-402/15)

(2015/C 311/62)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 3228) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the Convergence objective in Poland; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 3228) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the Convergence objective in Poland;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 41(1) in conjunction with Articles 56(3) and 60(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and of the principle of sincere cooperation, by carrying out an appraisal of the project in a way going beyond the selection criteria laid down by the Monitoring Committee even though those criteria had not been questioned by the Commission at the time of their adoption, and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 41(1) in conjunction with Articles 56(3) and 60(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and of the principle of sincere cooperation, by carrying out an appraisal of the project in a way going beyond the selection criteria laid down by the Monitoring Committee even though those criteria had not been questioned by the Commission at the time of their adoption, and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project.

| 2. | Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), by the assumption that only investments with the greatest potential for diffusion of innovation could be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project by the assumption that it did not guarantee compliance with the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ because of lack of innovative character. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), by the assumption that only investments with the greatest potential for diffusion of innovation could be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project by the assumption that it did not guarantee compliance with the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ because of lack of innovative character.

| 3. | Third plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the ERDF, by the assumption that only investments creating highly qualified jobs could be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project by the assumption that it did not create highly qualified jobs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the ERDF, by the assumption that only investments creating highly qualified jobs could be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project by the assumption that it did not create highly qualified jobs.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by the assumption that it did not guarantee the realisation of the aims of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ because of lack of added value and lack of incentive effect. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by the assumption that it did not guarantee the realisation of the aims of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ because of lack of added value and lack of incentive effect.

---