Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:299
Date: 2017-05-04
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Poland

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 4 May 2017 1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision addressed to a Member State and refusing to grant a financial contribution from the ERDF for a major national project — Action by the undertaking responsible for implementing the project — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006) 2. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Acts requiring national application measures — Natural or legal persons able to resort to a request for a preliminary ruling for an assessment of validity — Obligation on Member States to establish the necessary remedies to ensure effective judicial protection (Art. 4 TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 267 TFEU) 1. Only measures which produce binding legal effects and are capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitute an act or a decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment. In order to satisfy the requirement that the decision forming the subject matter of the proceedings must be of direct concern to a natural or legal person, two cumulative criteria must be met, namely, first, the contested Union measure must directly affect the legal situation of the individual and, second, it must leave no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from EU rules without the application of other intermediate rules. In the case of a Commission decision refusing to grant a Member State a financial contribution from the ERDF for a major national project, the first criterion of being directly affected is not fulfilled in the case of an action brought against that decision by an undertaking designated in the request for contribution submitted by the Member State as the undertaking responsible for the implementation of the project and which has concluded with the said Member State a contract concerning the grant of a subsidy for the implementation of that project. In the first place, the said decision does not produce effects on the legal situation of such an undertaking, since it is the Member State concerned that is the holder of the right to EU financial assistance in question. It is clear from the provisions of Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund that it is solely in the context of the relations between the Commission and the Member State that operations are conducted by which the Commission assesses and confirms whether or not a Member State is to receive a financial contribution from the ERDF for a major project. That is in line with the fact that ERDF assistance is intended as a system between the Commission and the Member State concerned. In that regard, the designation, in a decision granting EU financial assistance under the ERDF, of an entity as the authority responsible for implementing the project does not mean that it is itself entitled to that assistance. That applies a fortiori where the ERDF assistance has not yet been granted to the Member State and, hence, where the relationship between the entity designated as responsible for implementing the project, which is responsible for the application or the beneficiary of the assistance, and ERDF assistance is even more indirect. Moreover, implementation of the contested decision by the Member State concerned does not entail, either by virtue of the contested decision itself or of the provisions of EU law intended to govern its effect, any consequences for the applicant, its effects being confined to relations between the Union, in particular the ERDF, and the said Member State. Thus, the contested decision does not prevent the applicant from proceeding with the project or the Member State from funding it with financial resources other than those from the ERDF. Similarly, the contested decision does not require the Member State to terminate the contract or recover any sums which it might have paid to the applicant for the implementation of the project. In those circumstances, there are no direct repercussions for the said party as a result of the contested decision under EU law or of the decision itself and, accordingly, the second criterion of direct concern is not fulfilled in that case. (see paras 23, 32, 37-40, 45, 54, 64, 65, 67) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 55, 57)