Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2005:387
Date: 2005-06-16
Language of the case: Italian
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Economic, social and territorial cohesion;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - decision unnecessary;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Actions for annulment – Action brought against a decision – Adoption in the course of proceedings of a decision equivalent to the annulment of the contested decision – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate (Art. 230 EC) 2. Actions for annulment – Challengeable acts – Letter of the Commission addressed to a Member State concerning the conditions of eligibility for Community financial aid of payments on account made by national bodies within the framework of State aid schemes (Art. 230 EC) 3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Eligibility for aid of expenditure paid out by national bodies – Condition – Proof of use of the expenditure for the project financed – Exception – Payments on account which do not go beyond a certain limit (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Art. 32(2); Commission Regulation No 1685/2000, points 1 and 2 of Rule No 1 of the Annex) 4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) 5. Procedure – Plea of lis pendens – Identical parties, subject-matter and submissions in the two actions – Inadmissibility of the second action 1. By the annulment of a contested decision in the course of proceedings, the applicant obtains the only result that its action, brought under Article 230 EC, could have secured for it, so that nothing remains on which the Court can give a decision. In the context of such an action, the Court can do no more than annul the measure at issue. Consequently, the action becomes devoid of purpose and there is no need to give a decision. (see paras 25-26) 2. An action for annulment is available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects. That applies to a letter of the Commission sent to a Member State which aims to make known the view of that institution as regards the ineligibility for a contribution from the Structural Funds of certain payments on account made by the Member States within the framework of a State aid scheme. Although it is certain that, in the first part of that letter, the Commission reaffirmed its position on the ineligibility for a contribution from the Structural Funds of payments on account made by the Member States, as an interpretative memorandum concerning the third subparagraph of Article 32(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, it none the less remains the case that, in order to justify the reimbursement of the payments on account made up to a certain date on the basis of protection of the legitimate expectations of the Member States, it refers explicitly, in its second part, to doubts which could have arisen in relation to the exact status of the provisions in force. Thus, given that that letter is not merely confirmatory of the interpretative memorandum, it must be regarded as the definitive outcome of a reconsideration of the situation. (see paras 32-33, 36-37) 3. The payment system within the framework of State aid schemes, introduced by Article 32 of Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds and by Rule No 1 of the Annex to Regulation No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1260/1999, is based on the principle of reimbursement of expenses. That implies that, as a rule, eligibility for a contribution from the Structural Funds of expenditure paid out by national bodies is conditional on submitting to the Commission proof of its use for the project financed by the European Union. It is only in the case of payment by the Commission, in the form of payment on account, of an amount of 7% of the contribution from the Structural Funds to the assistance in question, as laid down in Article 32(2) of Regulation No 1260/1999, that national authorities are not required to submit, at that early stage, documents justifying expenditure paid out. Payments on account made by national bodies which do not exceed 7% of the contribution from those Funds may thus be granted without any requirement as regards proof of use. On the contrary, if those payments on account exceed that amount, their reimbursement by the Commission a posteriori will depend on the presentation of the receipted invoices or, where that is not possible, by accounting documents of equivalent probative value. In the latter case, the payment to be made by the Commission will no longer be in the form of a payment on account but in the form of an interim payment or payment of the final balance, within the meaning of Article 32, which thus requires submission of the documents proving the use of the sums in question. (see paras 45-49) 4. The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review. That requirement must be appraised by reference to the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. (see paras 54-55) 5. An action brought subsequently to another which is between the same parties, is brought on the basis of the same submissions and seeks annulment of the same legal measure must be dismissed as inadmissible on the ground of lis pendens. (see para. 64)