Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:176
Date: 2002-07-09
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Culture
Concepts: Statement of reasons
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

summary nature of the statement of reasons in the decision by which the Commission refused to award financial support under the MEDIA II programme seems to be an inevitable consequence of the large number of applications for support submitted in response to Call for proposals No 3/2000, on which the Commission had to give a decision in a short period. It is clear from the contested decision that the Commission rejected approximately 84% of the 577 applications for financial support which it examined. In those circumstances, providing more detailed reasons in support of each individual decision would have significantly slowed down the process of awarding the Community funds available under Call for proposals No 3/2000 (see by way of analogy Case C-213/87 Gemeente Amsterdam and VIA v Commission [1990] ECR I-221 (Summary publication), paragraph 2). Although terse, the statement of reasons in the contested decision did enable the applicant to defend its rights and the Court of First Instance to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 45. It follows that the applicant has not succeeded in proving that the contested decision is based by implication on the fact that the Commission took the view that it was not a company eligible for financial support under the MEDIA II programme. 46. Accordingly, the complaints alleging that the definition of a European production company is discriminatory are not relevant and must therefore be dismissed. There is therefore no need to assess the merits of the applicant's plea of illegality as regards the definition of a European production company contained in the fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Decision 95/563, since that too is irrelevant. 47. The application for annulment must therefore be dismissed. The application for compensation Arguments of the parties 48. The applicant claims compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the fact that it was, in its view discriminated against, which it provisionally evaluates at EUR 2 446 386.70. 49. The Commission contends that the applicant has not shown that the conditions giving rise to liability on the part of the Community are met in this case. Findings of the Court 50. It is settled case-law that, in order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability, a number of conditions must be satisfied concerning the illegality of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, the fact of the damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of (see, to that effect, Case C-87/89 Sonito and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-1981, paragraph 16, and Case T-13/96 TEAM v Commission [1998] ECR II-4073, paragraph 68). 51. It is clear from an examination of the application for annulment that, since the Commission did not commit any illegal act capable of causing the Community to incur liability, one of the necessary conditions is not met. 52. Accordingly the application for compensation must be dismissed, without there being any need to consider whether the other conditions giving rise to liability on the part of the Community are met. 53. It follows from all the foregoing that the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 54. Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, and the Commission has applied for costs, it must be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in addition to its own costs. 55. Pursuant to Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Council, which intervened, must bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the application; 2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the defendant in addition to its own; 3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs. Cooke García-Valdecasas Lindh Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 July 2002. H. Jung J.D. Cooke Registrar President 1: Language of the case: French.