# C_2015371EN.01001701.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/17

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-314/13 Portugal v Commission

(Case C-495/15 P)

(2015/C 371/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015, delivered in Case T-314/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015, delivered in Case T-314/13;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for further adjudication; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for further adjudication;

| — | order the Portuguese State to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese State to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law: — The Commission submits, primarily, that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission must adopt the decision on financial corrections in the framework of the Cohesion Fund within the time limit prescribed by the basic legislative provision from the date on which the Member State was heard.

Pleas in law:

In the alternative, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the time limit for the Commission to adopt the decision on financial corrections is mandatory, failure to comply with which constitutes a material infringement, thus invalidating a decision adopted out of time.

Main arguments — The Commission submits, primarily, that, in the present case, Article 100 of Regulation No 1083/2006 (1) did not apply, but that Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 (2) did apply. In the Commission’s opinion, the General Court’s interpretation of Article 108 of Regulation No 1083/2006 is wrong. Article 108 applies only to co-financed projects, approved in accordance with the new rules (period 2007 to 2013). In the present case, by virtue of Article 105 of Regulation No 1083/2006, the applicable provision was Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94. In the Commission’s opinion, Regulation No 1164/94 makes no provision for a time limit within which the Commission must take the decision on financial corrections.

Main arguments

1

2

In the alternative, the Commission submits that the EU legislature did not lay down any mandatory time limit within which the Commission must adopt decisions on financial corrections. The essential purpose of a decision on financial corrections concerns the protection of the European Union’s financial interests. The legislation does not make provision for any penalty or any consequence in connection with the failure to observe the time limit. Thus, the time limit for taking a decision on financial corrections is sequential in nature.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210 p. 25).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, 25.5., p. 1).

2

---