# C_2013260EN.01003201.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/32

---

Appeal brought on 3 July 2013 by Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) against the judgment delivered on 19 April 2013 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-51/11 Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v Commission

(Case C-379/13 P)

2013/C 260/59

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (represented by: N. Morais Sarmento and L. Pinto Monteiro, advogados)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

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 under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs in addition to those incurred by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs in addition to those incurred by the appellant.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable period of time

Failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable period of time

(i)   The proceedings are time-barred

The appellant submits that the contested decision was adopted after the four-year limitation period for proceedings, as set out in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, (1) had expired. Equally, even if there had been a possible interruption of the limitation period for proceedings, more than twice the limitation period had expired without any decision being taken in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. Since the corresponding right was thus time-barred, the contested decision should be declared unlawful and unenforceable.

1

(ii)   Infringement of the principle of legal certainty

The appellant considers that the fact that the Commission allowed more than 20 years to pass between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the contested decision amounts to a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of European Union law provides that all individuals have the right to have their cases dealt with by the European Union institutions within a reasonable period of time.

(iii)   Infringement of the rights of the defence

The appellant considers that its rights of defence have been infringed in so far as, given that more than 20 years had passed between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the appellant was deprived of its right to submit its observations in good time, namely at a point in time when it was still in possession of documents enabling it to justify the expenses which the Commission deemed ineligible.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

1

---