Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2157
Date: 2014-09-04
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Appeal - successful
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 4 September 2014 1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) 2. EU — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Differences between the various language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules at issue taken into account (Council Regulation No 1164/94, Annex II, Art. H(2), as amended by Regulations No 1264/1999 and No 1265/1999) 3. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU funding — Suspension or reduction of financial assistance a result of irregularities — Limitation period for adopting the Commission’s decision — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 1164/94, Annex II, Art. H(2), as amended by Regulations No 1264/1999 and No 1265/1999; Commission Regulation No 1386/2002, Art. 18(3); Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1303/2013, Art. 145(6)) 4. Member States — Obligations — Obligation of sincere cooperation with the EU institutions — Reciprocity (Art. 4(3) TEU) 5. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU funding — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Financial corrections — Limitation period for adopting the Commission’s decision — No possibility of adopting a decision after expiry of the time-limit (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) 6. Action for annulment — Pleas in law — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure to comply with a time-limit set by the EU legislature — Examination of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 42-45) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 55) 3. It follows from Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1386/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1164/94, which refers expressly to Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 establishing a Cohesion Fund, as amended by Regulations No 1264/1999 and 1265/1999, that the Commission has, by virtue of Article H(2), a three-month period to take a decision on financial corrections, and that period begins to run from the date of the formal hearing with the Member State. Whilst it is true that the rules applicable to the period from 1994 to 1999 did not set a time-limit in that regard, as from 2000, the Commission is nevertheless obliged to comply with the legal time-limit for adopting a decision on financial corrections, and the conditions for that time-limit vary depending on the applicable rules. Furthermore, so far as concerns decisions with important budgetary implications, it is in the interests both of the Member State concerned and of the Commission that the length of the procedure for financial corrections be predictable, which implies the setting of a predetermined time-limit for adopting the final decision. Failing to comply with the time-limit laid down for adopting a decision on financial corrections is not compatible with the general principle of sound administration. (see paras 62, 75, 82, 88, 94-97) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 87) 5. The fact that Article 100(5) of Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation No 1260/1999, which sets a time-limit of six months for adopting a decision on financial corrections, does not expressly provide that, in the event of non-compliance with that time-limit, the Commission may no longer adopt such a decision is irrelevant, since the setting of a time-limit within which a decision of that nature must be adopted is in itself sufficient. (see para. 102) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 103)