Case T–290/02

Associazione Consorzi Tessili (Ascontex)

v

Commission of the European Communities

(European Regional Development Fund – Community initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises – Organisation of ‘IBEX’ reverse exhibitions – Cancellation and demand for repayment of financial assistance – Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Article 24 – Action for annulment)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 14 September 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Procedure for cancelling financial assistance – Obligations of the Commission – Obligation to request the Member State concerned or the authorities designated by it to submit their observations within a specified period – None in the particular case where the designated authority and the beneficiary of the financial assistance are one and the same

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Arts 14(1), 21(1), and 24(1))

2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Cancellation of the whole of an assistance package for failure to organise an international exhibition in the textile and clothing sector – Infringement – None

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

1. Where a beneficiary of Community financial assistance has been accorded the status of ‘designated authority’ within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) 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 Commission is under no obligation to consult the Member State concerned before adopting a decision withdrawing that assistance, since under that provision it has the choice, when it proposes to cancel the assistance in question, of requesting the Member State concerned or the authorities designated by it to submit their comments within a specified period.

That conclusion is not contradicted by the applicant’s status as a private-law association. There is nothing in Regulation No 4253/88 to prevent Member States from entrusting a person governed by private law, notably the person who proposes to carry out the project submitted to the Commission with a view to securing Community financing, with tasks consisting in processing applications for assistance and receiving payments within the meaning of Article 14(1) and Article 21(1) of that regulation. That is a fortiori so where the financial project concerned only marginally affects the public interests of the State of the beneficiary of the Community funds.

(see paras 39, 46-47)

2. The Commission does not infringe the principle of proportionality where, having determined that a project concerning the organisation of an international exhibition in the textile and clothing sector, proposed by the beneficiary of Community assistance, has not been carried out on the dates envisaged, it decides, in accordance with Article 24 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, to cancel the whole of the financial assistance granted and demand repayment of the advance paid.

Bearing in mind that the obligation actually to carry out the project constituted the essential duty for the beneficiary of the financial assistance, and its fulfilment was therefore a condition for the award of that assistance, that beneficiary lost any right to the financial assistance in question since the exhibition proposed was never achieved, even in part. Partial financing by the Commission would strictly speaking have been possible only if the project had been carried out in part.

(see paras 59-60, 67-68)