Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:222
Date: 2014-04-01
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 24 June 2015 1. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU funding — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Financial corrections — Time-limit for the adoption of the Commission’s decision — Point from which time starts to run — Failure to comply with that time‑limit — Infringement of essential procedural requirements (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(1) and (5)) 2. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings — Scope — View expressed by the Commission on issues of fact and law which are essentially identical to those in other cases — Case‑law of the Court on the provision at issue — Whether sufficient (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 75; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) 1. The adoption by the Commission of a decision on financial corrections is subject, as from 2000, to the observance of a certain time-limit. The length of the time-limit granted to the Commission to adopt its decisions varies depending on the applicable rules. It is apparent from Article 100(1) and (5) of Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund that, where the Member State does not accept the provisional conclusions of the Commission, the latter is required to send a letter of invitation to a hearing and to hold a hearing in order to satisfy the procedural requirements in matters relating to financial corrections; those two steps constitute the starting point for the calculation of the time-limit within which the Commission must adopt a decision by which it makes such a correction. Moreover, 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. Failure to comply with the time-limit laid down for adopting such a decision is not compatible with the general principle of sound administration. In those circumstances, the Commission cannot free itself of its obligation to adopt decisions on the basis of which it makes financial corrections within a predetermined time-limit by omitting to undertake the steps which constitute the starting point for the calculation of that time-limit. Therefore, failure on the part of the Commission to have adopted a decision on corrections to financial assistance from those funds within the time-limit prescribed by the EU legislature constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements and failure on the part of the Court to take full account thereof constitutes an error of law. (see paras 81, 83, 87, 89, 90, 92, 98, 99, 103) 2. Except in particular cases such as, inter alia, those provided for by the rules of procedure of the Union judicature, those courts cannot base their decisions on a plea raised of their own motion, even one involving a matter of public policy, without first having invited the parties to submit their observations on that plea. Such a particular case, in which it is not necessary to invite the parties to submit their observations on that plea exists where, first, the Commission had sufficient opportunity to submit, in the context of an exchange of views in previous cases concerning identical factual and legal issues, its pleas in law and arguments in relation to the scope of the time-limit laid down in 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, second, the interpretation given to that provision in those cases must be regarded as established, in that the Court has confirmed it in numerous subsequent cases. (see paras 93, 94, 96, 97)