Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:71
Date: 2011-03-03
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Arbitration clause
Origin: Portugal

Summary of the Judgment 1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) 2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Global grant for local development (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 21(1)) 3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – European Union funding – Amount resulting directly from the grant decision – Agreement concluded between the Commission and the body entrusted with management of financial assistance that provides for an arbitration clause – Exclusion from its scope of disputes relating to irregularities in the performance of the agreement (Council Regulations Nos 4253/88, Arts 20(1) and 21(1), and 4254/88, Art. 6(2)) 1. The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure, in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. (see para. 58) 2. An agreement concluded between the Commission and an intermediary body entrusted with the management of local development support, laying down the conditions for the use of such support, cannot be interpreted as contravening the Community rules governing the grant in question. Article 21(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation 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, clearly states that the payment of financial assistance granted on the basis of the provisions of that regulation must relate exclusively to expenditure actually incurred. In the context of a global grant, the concept of ‘expenditure actually incurred’ can be defined by specific provisions in the Community framework of the Structural Funds. In an interest subsidy scheme, the intermediary pays a subsidised loan to the final beneficiary. The interest subsidies represent the amounts resulting from the difference between the interest at the market rate and the interest actually paid by the final beneficiaries. Accordingly, the interest subsidies are actually incurred at the time when the interest payments fall due, which may take several years. Thus, the interest subsidies follow the payment of the interest by the final beneficiaries for the duration of the loans. Consequently, in the light solely of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, the interest subsidies may be treated as expenditure actually incurred when the interest instalments relating to them are paid. The mere existence of the financial obligations resulting from the loan contracts concluded between the body entrusted with the management of support and the final beneficiaries is not sufficient for the interest subsidies payable after the final date for acceptance of expenditure provided for in the grant decision to be treated as expenditure actually incurred within the meaning of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 4253/88. First, at the time of conclusion of those contracts, all that exist, with regard to that provision, are the obligations between the parties to the loan contract, which must be distinguished from the expenditure actually incurred in order to fulfil those obligations. Secondly, whereas it follows from the grant decision that the acceptance of the expenditure does not relate to the liabilities arising from the loan contracts, but rather to the actual expenditure incurred as a result of those contracts, those can only be the interest subsidies actually incurred at the time of payment of the interest instalments by the final beneficiaries. (see paras 81-83, 87, 98) 3. As is clear from Article 20(1) and Article 21(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation 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, the payment of the financial assistance granted on the basis of the provisions of that regulation is made in accordance with the budgetary commitments made on the basis of the decision approving the measure concerned. Whereas the amount of assistance results from the grant decision, an agreement entered into between the Commission and the body entrusted with management of the support, intended to establish certain procedures for its use, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation No 4254/88, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards the ERDF, cannot give rise to a financial obligation on the part of the Community. In those circumstances, a dispute relating to irregularities in the performance of the agreement does not come within the scope of the arbitration clause provided for under that agreement. (see para. 115)