Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:300
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

Action brought on 22 July 2015 – JYSK v Commission (Case T-403/15) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: JYSK sp. z o.o. (Radomsko, Poland) (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Commission decision C(2015) 3228 final of 11 May 2015 regarding a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project “European Shared Service Centre – Intelligent Logistics Systems”, forming part of the operational program “Innovative Economy” for assistance from the ERDF under the Convergence objective in Poland. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging JYSK met the set requirements by the Polish Government and the purposes of both the Operational Program Innovative Economy 2007-2013 (OP IE) and of EU law. Second plea in law, alleging that the project is in line with the OP IE and with the EU law. The applicant puts forward that in its decision, the Commission does not question that the set criteria in Submeasure 4.5.2. (annex 2) are in line with the OP IE and EU law. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Commission does not question the fact that the project is in line with the set criteria and/or that JYSK was entitled to the score of 60,5 points. Third plea in law, alleging the essence of this lawsuit. The applicant puts forward that this lawsuit – in reality – got nothing to do with JYSK – as all parties – even the Commission – agree to the fact that JYSK did in fact meet the set criteria. According to the applicant, this lawsuit is therefore solely a dispute of lawfulness between the Polish administration on the one side and the Commission on the opposite side. That should not make JYSK become a victim. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission representative confirmed that the Polish administration is in line with EU law and with the OP IE. According to the applicant, it is clear that the Commission agreed to all the set requirements and that it accepted the OP IE and the concrete implementation. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the division of competences between the Commission and the Polish administration and infringes the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. The applicant puts forward that the Commission is not entitled to decline national support on grounds that are for the Polish administration to decide – because of the latters` close experience with the area. According to the applicant, the Commission is furthermore not entitled to decline on grounds that were known to it at the time of JYSK application. The “Scoreboard” (Submeasure 4.5.2.) allegedly expresses exactly the goals and purposes in the OP IE and both were known to the Commission representative in the Monitoring Committee at the time of the JYSK application. The correct understanding / interpretation of the OP IE, so the applicant claims, shall take into account the specific knowledge of the Polish administration concerning work places and skills of workers in Radomsko, and it is not for the Commission to override in all details the assessment of the Polish administration when implementing the program, nor is it correct to consider any intention or “goal” of the OP IE to be decisive as the Commission does. According to the applicant, the correct understanding of the OP IE and EU law shall be based upon the fact that some of the provisions are of greater importance than others – illustrated in the scoreboard (Submeasure 4.5.2.). Sixth plea in law, alleging the arguments of the Commission. The applicant puts forward that none of the three main arguments were in force and / or decisive in the sense the Commission claims and within the understanding that the Commission refers to at the time of JYSK application (July 2008). According to the applicant, they can therefore not be relevant in this case and, to the extent the court finds them relevant, they were not decisive. ____________