Case T-341/02: Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Regional Development Fund, action for annulment (EU), expenditure, project management

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/25

— order the defendant to bear their own costs and to pay

those incurred by the applicants.

Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

Pleas in law and main arguments

SEGI and its two representatives are seeking compensation for
the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the abovementioned
association’s name having been included in the list of terrorist
persons, groups and bodies, pursuant to Common Position
2001/931/CFSP (1), adopted on 27 December 2001, confirmed
by Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (2) adopted on
2 May 2001, and Council Common Position 2002/940/
CFSP (3) adopted on 17 June 2002.

In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the
common position, which is the subject-matter of the action, is
vitiated by a number of irregularities, namely breach of a
number of fundamental rights, liberties and principles, protect-
ed under the Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, such as the right to the presumption of
innocence, the right to a proper hearing, in so far as there is
no means of challenging the common position in question
through the courts, the right to freedom of speech, in particular
so far as concerns the right to self-determination and the
search for a solution to the Basque conflict by negotiation, and
the right to privacy.

The applicants also claim that the procedure for the adoption
of Decision 2001/931/CFSP was unlawful
in that on
27 December 2001 the Council adopted four measures to
combat terrorism and to define the list of terrorist persons,
groups and bodies. However, those four measures are closely
linked and it is impossible to understand one without know-
ledge of the other three. Moreover,
it would appear that
the European Parliament was consulted only in relation to
the other measures,
Regulation No 2580/2001 and not
in particular Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The latter
measures, although they are,
terms, common
positions, contain provisions which fall within the scope of
JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) or which reflect framework
decisions or positions which should have been the subject
of consultation with the European Parliament, pursuant to
Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

in formal

The applicants also allege breach of the rights of the defence
and of the obligation to provide reasons.

( 1) OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 93.
( 2) OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.
( 3) OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.

(Case T-341/02)

(2003/C 7/49)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 14 November 2002 by the
Regiona Siciliana, represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato,
against the Commission of the European Communities.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision No 109206 of 5 Sep-
tember 2002 on the closure of the major project ‘Messina-
Palermo motorway’ (ERDF No 93.05.03.001 — ARINCO
No 93.IT.16.009) and order the Commission of the
European Communities to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision, which concerns the major project
‘Messina-Palermo motorway’ partly financed by contributions
from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), closed
the intervention procedure and decided that the costs of the
instalments which had been completed by the date of adoption
the decision were eligible. Consequently the decision
of
concluded that there would be a settlement of the ERDF
contribution by unblocking EUR 26 378 246 with a balance
to be recovered of EUR 58 036 177.

In support of
following arguments:

its claims the applicant puts forward the

— The contested decision is ultra vires in so far as it appears
to have been issued by the Director General for Regional
Policy instead of by the Commission itself. Additionally,
in the decisions of 22 December 1993 and 28 July 1995
adopted earlier in the course of the project, the deadline
by which costs had to have been incurred in order to be
eligible for cofinancing was fixed as 31 December 1997,
whereas in the contested decision the eligibility of costs
was for the first time correlated to the functionality,
within a reasonable period of time, of the works in
respect of which the costs were incurred.

C 7/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

— Infringement and erroneous application of Articles 24
and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December
1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regu-
lation (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 instru-
ments as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/
93 of 20 July 1993 (1).

— The actions at issue are contradictory and infringe the
principle of protection of legitimate expectation. It is
submitted in this regard that, for the purposes of the
decisions of 28 July 1995 cited above, the costs incurred
prior
from
to 31 December 1997 could benefit
cofinancing without containing any reference to the

completion or functionality of the works. Those require-
ments were introduced in the closure proposal of
22 December 2001, whilst the works were in full progress
and the managers responsible had already submitted the
relevant certificates. The contested decision then sets out
an interpretation of the functionality of the works which,
even though more favourable than that set out in the
closure proposal, departs from the rules originally laid
down for the eligibility for Community cofinancing of
the costs incurred.

Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty to state
reasons.

(1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1 and OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20 respectively.