Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Community funding — Procedure for cancelling financial assistance — Commission ' s obligations — Obligation to request the Member State concerned to submit its observations within a specified period of time — Obligation does not extend to a duty to wait for those observations before adopting a decision to cancel assistance — (Council Regulations No 2052/88, Art. 4(1), and No 4253/88, Art. 24(1) and (2))

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect appraisal of the facts — Inadmissible — Whether the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — (Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

Summary

1. With regard to the alleged need for the Commission to receive the observations of the Member State concerned before cancelling financial assistance, Article 24(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 provides only that the Commission is to conduct a suitable examination of the case, in particular requesting that the Member State concerned or other authorities designated by it to implement the operation submit their comments within a specified period of time. Following this examination, the Commission may take the necessary measures if the examination reveals an irregularity.

It is not apparent from the wording of that article that, on an appropriate examination of the case, the Commission ' s obligation goes further than the mere requirement that it request the Member State or the other authorities appointed by it to implement the action to submit their observations within a specified period. That is corroborated by the consideration that both the reference to a specified period and the Commission ' s power under Article 24(2) to cancel assistance would be totally deprived of usefulness if, prior to the adoption of a decision, the Commission were obliged to wait for the Member State concerned to submit its observations.

The concept of partnership in Article 24(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 and in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2052/88, which is viewed as a close collaboration between the Commission, the Member State concerned and the competent authorities appointed by the latter at national, regional, local or other level, does not require the adoption by the Commission of a decision to cancel assistance to be subject to prior receipt by the Commission of the observations of a Member State. Nor may those articles found a competence enabling a Member State to impose on the Commission obligations additional to those provided for in Article 24(1) of Regulation No 4253/88.

see paras 29, 31-32

2. It follows from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that the latter is not competent to find the facts or, as a rule, to examine the evidence which the Court of First Instance accepted in support of those facts. Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. That appraisal does not therefore constitute, save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court.

see para. 36