Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:246
Date: 2005-06-22
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Pleas in law;Structural funds
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 230 EC) 2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to withdraw financial assistance – Duty to state reasons – Scope – Decision not taking account of factors likely to justify reimbursement of expenditure effected by the national body – Inadequate statement of reasons (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24) 1. Lack or insufficiency of reasoning constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements within the meaning of Article 230 EC and is a matter of public policy which the Community judicature must raise of its own motion. (see para. 46) 2. The statement of reasons for an individual decision adversely affecting a person must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review. Accordingly the decision of the Commission on withdrawal of European Regional Development Fund financial assistance does not give sufficient reasons, since it does not comment on the various facts and arguments liable to arise in the decision-making process, with regard to the question whether or not those factors could justify reimbursement of the expenditure effected by the intermediary body before the withdrawal of the assistance, even though a response to those points is essential in order to enable the Court of First Instance to determine whether the contested decision is well founded. (see paras 47-48, 60)