Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1999:478
Date: 1999-10-05
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Concepts: Structural funds
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Economic and social cohesion — European Regional Development Fund — Manage­
ment and monitoring — Transitional arrangements — Deadlines for requesting 
payment of the sums granted — Where deadlines are not met — Penalties — 
Automatic release of unclaimed sums — Whether in breach of the principles of 
Community solidarity, proportionality or protection of legitimate expectations — No 
such breach — Consultation of the ERDF Committee — Whether obligatory — No 
such obligation 
(Council Regulations No 1784/84, Art. 32, and No 4254/88, Art. 12) 
I - 6547 
SUMMARY — CASE C-84/96 
2. Economic and social cohesion — European Regional Development Fund — Grant of 
Community financial assistance — Deadline for submitting requests for final 
payment — Meaning of 'request for final payment' 
(Council Regulations No 2052/88, Art. 15, and No 4254/88, Art. 12) 
1. In setting 31 March 1995 as the dead­
line for requesting final payment from 
the Commission of the sums committed 
for projects in respect of which co-
financing by the European Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) was deci­
ded before 1 January 1989, the transi­
tional arrangements provided for by 
Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88 
left the Commission with no discretion 
as regards imposition of the penalty for 
non-observance of that deadline — 
namely the automatic release of por­
tions of the sums committed — since 
release of the sums is the automatic and 
inescapable consequence of failure to 
observe that deadline. 
It follows that the Commission's impo­
sition of the penalty provided for in 
Article 12 of the above Regulation 
infringes neither the principle of Com­
munity solidarity nor its corollary, the 
principle of regional partnership; nor 
does it infringe the principles of pro­
portionality or protection of legitimate 
expectations. 
Furthermore, the procedure necessita­
ting consultation of the ERDF Com­
mittee, laid down in Article 32 of 
Regulation No 1787/84 on the Eur­
opean Regional Development Fund, 
entails the exercise of discretion by 
the Commission and does not fall to be 
applied where the latter applies Arti­
cle 12. 
2. It is clear from Article 12 of Regulation 
No 4254/88, read in conjunction with 
Article 15 of Regulation No 2052/88, 
that requests submitted by Member 
States for final payment of sums com­
mitted by way of funding for projects 
co-financed by the European Regional 
Development Fund must at least con­
tain the information needed by the 
Commission in order to proceed with 
the final conclusion of those projects 
and payment of the sums claimed. 
A letter by which a Member State 
confines itself to announcing the com­
pletion of certain projects for which 
funding has been granted and which 
does not provide the Commission with 
any information enabling it finally to 
conclude the projects at issue, in parti­
cular as regards the amounts claimed, 
cannot be regarded as a request for 
final payment within the meaning of 
Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88. 
I - 6548