# C_2015294EN.01007501.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/75

---

Action brought on 11 June 2015 — Republic of Poland v Commission

(Case T-316/15)

(2015/C 294/90)

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 31 March 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 2230) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ 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 31 March 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 2230) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ 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: incorrect interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (1), by finding that the investment in the creation of shared services centres, including the employment of specialists in the IT sector designing innovative services, did not constitute ‘productive investment which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that it could not be co-financed from resources of the European Regional Development Fund. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: incorrect interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (1), by finding that the investment in the creation of shared services centres, including the employment of specialists in the IT sector designing innovative services, did not constitute ‘productive investment which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that it could not be co-financed from resources of the European Regional Development Fund.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from resources of the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that only investments with ‘radical innovative potential’ may be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project, by finding that it did not ensure compliance with priority axis 4 of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme in view of its lack of innovative character. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from resources of the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that only investments with ‘radical innovative potential’ may be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project, by finding that it did not ensure compliance with priority axis 4 of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme in view of its lack of innovative character.

| 3. | Third plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by finding a lack of justification for allowing a public contribution, and incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that the payment of dividends on the terms envisaged in the project precluded allowing co-financing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by finding a lack of justification for allowing a public contribution, and incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund, by finding that the payment of dividends on the terms envisaged in the project precluded allowing co-financing.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project, changing the approach to the possibility of financing investments in the services sector in the course of that appraisal, and disregarding the explanations of the Polish authorities on the innovative character of the project. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project, changing the approach to the possibility of financing investments in the services sector in the course of that appraisal, and disregarding the explanations of the Polish authorities on the innovative character of the project.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 1).

1

---