# C_2005057EN.01003201.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/32

---

Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Association Coopération des Bibliothèques de Bretagne (COBB) against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-485/04)

(2005/C 57/54)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 December 2004 by the Association Coopération des Bibliothèques de Bretagne (COBB), established in Rennes (France), represented by J.-P. Martin, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the subparagraph concerning the COBB of Decision No 1116 dated 9 December 2003 of the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the subparagraph concerning the COBB of Decision No 1116 dated 9 December 2003 of the Commission of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is against the Commission's decision which excluded the operation ‘Réseau des périodiques de Bretagne, année 1999’ (Brittany Periodicals Network 1999), for which the applicant had applied for a subsidy from the ERDF, from expenditure eligible under the Programme Objectif 5b Bretagne 1994-1999 (Programme Objective 5b Brittany 1994-1999).

The applicant sought that financing under a programme of rural and costal development entitled ‘Morgane 2’, which was implemented for the Brittany Region, in respect of Objective 5b for the period 1994-1999. That programme describes all the action eligible for European financing, of which Action 215, which comes within Priority Axis A aimed at mobilising the employment market and, more particularly, within Measure 2 aimed at improving the competitiveness of businesses, by developing remote working and access to teleservices.

In concrete terms, the operation ‘Brittany Periodicals Network’ consists of putting in place, thanks to a network of establishments, a hardware and software infrastructure managing a database made up of articles from periodicals and studies covering Brittany, in order to make high-quality information on that region accessible, via the Internet, to all decision-makers (elected representatives, heads of undertakings, etc.). Its aim is to support and raise the quality of information and decision of the economic decision-makers with a view to greater competitiveness of undertakings.

It was only after two agreements granting subsidy had been signed, that the Region's Prefecture notified the applicant of the contested decision.

In support of its claims, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. The first concerns a mistake in the statement of reasons, the second brings together arguments alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the third alleges breach of the duty to state reasons.

The applicant submits in that regard that:

| — | contrary to the defendant's statement, the applicant is established in an eligible area, since there is no requirement in Action 215, Axis A concerning the recipient's registered office, and, since, in this case, the area concerned covers the whole of Area 5b, that is to say, ‘the rural and costal world’ of Brittany. Also, Action 215 lists individually the ‘economic development associations and bodies’, which shows that the two expressions cannot be mistaken; |
| --- | --- |

—

contrary to the defendant's statement, the applicant is established in an eligible area, since there is no requirement in Action 215, Axis A concerning the recipient's registered office, and, since, in this case, the area concerned covers the whole of Area 5b, that is to say, ‘the rural and costal world’ of Brittany. Also, Action 215 lists individually the ‘economic development associations and bodies’, which shows that the two expressions cannot be mistaken;

| — | the agreement granting subsidy signed between the applicant and the Prefecture on 31 December 2001 contained precise assurances which gave rise in the applicant's mind to expectations based on the continuity of the operation in question. Further, a European Union subsidy of EUR 10 976 was actually paid to the applicant in March 2002 under Programme 5b; |
| --- | --- |

—

the agreement granting subsidy signed between the applicant and the Prefecture on 31 December 2001 contained precise assurances which gave rise in the applicant's mind to expectations based on the continuity of the operation in question. Further, a European Union subsidy of EUR 10 976 was actually paid to the applicant in March 2002 under Programme 5b;

| — | the applicable Community legislation makes no reference either to possible withdrawal of a subsidy or to a demand for repayment thereof under the ERDF; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicable Community legislation makes no reference either to possible withdrawal of a subsidy or to a demand for repayment thereof under the ERDF;

| — | the decision complained of confines itself to a gap-filling reference to the reservation issued by the Commission interministérielle de coordination des contrôles (the Interministerial Commission for Coordination of Controls), but contains no reasoned or sufficient explanation enabling the reasons why the Commission held the operation in question to be ineligible to be understood. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision complained of confines itself to a gap-filling reference to the reservation issued by the Commission interministérielle de coordination des contrôles (the Interministerial Commission for Coordination of Controls), but contains no reasoned or sufficient explanation enabling the reasons why the Commission held the operation in question to be ineligible to be understood.

---