Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:20
Date: 2009-01-28
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth 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: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Grant of financial assistance – Obligation to implement that assistance in accordance with the financing plan approved by the Commission (Council Regulation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, Arts 24 and 25(5)) 2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Grant of financial assistance – Obligation to implement that assistance in accordance with the financing plan approved by the Commission (Council Regulation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, Arts 17, 24 and 25(5)) 3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Grant of financial assistance – Obligation to implement that assistance in accordance with the financing plan approved by the Commission (Council Regulation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, Arts 24 and 25(5)) 1. All financial assistance granted by the Structural Funds was to be implemented in accordance with the decision approving it and, in particular, with the financial table annexed to that decision and that, consequently, amendments to a financing plan approved by the Commission which are implemented without the latter’s consent lead, in principle, to a reduction in the assistance granted to the programme at issue. (see para. 36) 2. Although it is indeed true that Article 17(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments is based on the principle of a single rate of contribution for the entire action (operational programme, aid scheme, etc), Article 17(4) of that regulation expressly authorises the fixing of rates of contribution for individual or specific measures, it being understood that ‘individual measures’ within the meaning of that provision must of necessity correspond to a programming level stated in the financing plan. The rate of Community contribution constitutes one of the methods of assistance defined at the time of its grant, later amendment of which is subject to the procedures laid down in Article 25(5) of Regulation No 4253/88, which provides that the Commission is to be notified of amendments to the rates of assistance. Furthermore, that interpretation is the only one compatible with Article 25(5) of that regulation, which provides that adjustments to the financing plans annexed to the decisions granting financial assistance entail amendment of the rates of assistance and thus makes it quite clear that such rates of assistance are in effect laid down by financing plans and that their amendment follows automatically from other amendments made to a plan. In addition, it is only in this way that, in a situation where the final costs are lower than those laid down in the financing plan, that reduction in costs can be divided between the Community and the Member States in the same proportion as that in which they would have contributed to the costs if those had been at the level provided for in the financing plan established under the partnership. (see para. 40) 3. Infringement of national or Community provisions governing assistance from Community funds, including those of a financial nature, justifies the reduction or withdrawal of the assistance granted. If the Court were to accept that, since a Member State committed only one infringement of the procedural rules, the Commission could not reduce the assistance because that would affect projects correctly carried out, no consequences would attach to the infringement by that Member State of its obligation to carry out the operational programme in accordance with the financing plan approved by the Commission. That approach would thus render that obligation pointless since it would be sufficient for national authorities to prove that certain projects had been correctly carried out in order to obtain all the financing granted, whether or not they had complied with the financial provisions which they had agreed with the Commission. (see paras 53-54)