Case C‑263/13 P

Kingdom of Spain

v

European Commission

‛Appeals — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Reduction of financial assistance — Method of calculation by extrapolation — Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission — Failure to comply with the time limit laid down — Consequences’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 24 June 2015

Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — Financing by the European Union — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Financial corrections — Time limit for adoption of the Commission’s decision — Point from which time starts to run — Failure to comply with the time limit — Infringement of essential procedural requirements (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) European Union law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Compliance in judicial proceedings — Scope — Commission’s position on substantially identical questions of fact and law in other cases — Settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the provision in question — Sufficient (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 75; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5))

The adoption of a financial correction decision by the Commission has since 2000 been subject to compliance with a time limit laid down by law. The time limit for the Commission to take that decision varies according to the applicable legislation. Thus, in accordance with 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, the Commission is to take a decision on the financial correction within six months of the date of the hearing, and if no hearing takes place the six-month period begins to run two months from the date on which the Commission sent the letter of invitation. Consequently, the failure by the Commission to take a decision on corrections to financial assistance in the context of those funds within the time limit defined by that regulation constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements, disregard of which by the General Court constitutes an error of law. (see paras 50, 52, 56, 62, 63, 67) Apart from special cases such as those provided for by the rules of procedure of the Courts of the European Union, those courts may not base a decision on a plea raised by the court of its own motion, even if it involves a matter of public policy, without first inviting the parties to submit their observations on that plea. Such a special case in which there is no need to invite the parties to submit their observations on a plea exists where, first, the Commission had an adequate opportunity to submit, as part of an adversarial procedure in previous cases relating to substantially identical questions of fact and law, its pleas in law and arguments on 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, secondly, the interpretation of that provision adopted in those cases must be regarded as settled, since the Court has confirmed it in several later cases. (see paras 57-61)

Case C‑263/13 P

Kingdom of Spain

v

European Commission

‛Appeals — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Reduction of financial assistance — Method of calculation by extrapolation — Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission — Failure to comply with the time limit laid down — Consequences’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 24 June 2015

Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — Financing by the European Union — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Financial corrections — Time limit for adoption of the Commission’s decision — Point from which time starts to run — Failure to comply with the time limit — Infringement of essential procedural requirements (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) European Union law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Compliance in judicial proceedings — Scope — Commission’s position on substantially identical questions of fact and law in other cases — Settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the provision in question — Sufficient (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 75; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5))