Case C-46/03: Action brought on 7 February 2003 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, Northern Ireland, Structural Funds, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), expenditure

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/17

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/77/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 14 December 2000 fixing the principles
governing the organisation of official inspections in the
field of animal nutrition or, in any event, by failing to
inform the Commission thereof the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that
directive and under the EC Treaty.

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of

the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, under which a directive is binding on a
Member State, as to the result to be achieved, entails that the
Member States must respect the period for implementation
prescribed by the directive. That period ended on 29 December
2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted the necess-
ary provisions to comply with the directive which is the
subject of the Commission’s claims.

b.

c.

d.

a subsequent decision taken on a date unknown to
the United Kingdom in December 2002 or January
2003 to decommit those sums;

any steps taken pursuant to such decisions including
the act of decommitting those sums;

a Commission decision contained in the letter dated
22 November 2002 to issue a recovery order for the
sum of 9 272 767 Euros of ERDF money already
paid to the United Kingdom in respect of expendi-
ture incurred on MST 2; and

e.

any steps taken pursuant to such decision.

Pursuant to Article 231 EC make a declaration that each
of the said measures is void.

that

the Commission’s

Pursuant to Article 241 EC make a declaration that in the
event
of
Article 52(5) of Regulation 1260/99 (1) and/or Article 10
of Annex to the Commission Decision C(92)1358/8 is
correct, the said measures are inapplicable against the
United Kingdom.

interpretation

(2)

(3)

(4) Make an order that the Commission pay the United
Kingdom the costs of and occasioned by this Application
and these proceedings.

Action brought on 7 February 2003 by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against
the Commission

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-46/03)

(2003/C 70/27)

An action against the Commission was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February
2003 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, represented by P. Ormond, acting as agent, assisted by
D. Lloyd Jones QC and S. Lee, Barristers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

Pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC make an order
annulling the following measures:

a.

a Commission decision contained in a letter dated
22 November 2002 to decommit
the sum of
11 632 600 Euros in respect of expenditure incurred
on the Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 operational
programme, or MST 2;

1) T h e D e c o m m i t m e n t o f 1 1 6 3 2 6 0 0 E u r o s

o f E R D F A s s i s t a n c e

The Applicant submits that, in concluding that the United
Kingdom had not complied with Article 52(5) of Regulation
1260/1999, and in its conclusions as to the effect of any such
non-compliance, the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
interpretation and/or made a manifest error in assessment.

The Applicant maintains that
the sanction imposed by
Article 52(5) of the Regulation applies only where an appli-
cation for final payment has not been received by 31 March
2001 and that the Regulation requires no more than that an
application for final payment has been received by the
stipulated date. The Regulation does not require the submission
of an application in any particular form.

In particular, the Regulation does not require that an appli-
cation for final payment must be made in the standard form
ERDF Certification of Expenditure which is usually employed
for this purpose. The Commission therefore erred in law in
concluding that failure to make an application for final
payment in that form led to the imposition of the sanction
imposed by Article 52(5).

C 70/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

The Applicant submits that the documents communicated to
the Commission constituted an application for final payment
in accordance with Article 52(5) and that in concluding to the
contrary the Commission erred in law and/or made a manifest
error of assessment.

It is also submitted that the Commission’s interpretation of the
Regulation infringes the principles of legal certainty and of
proportionality.

The Applicant submits that if the Commission’s interpretation
of Article 52(5) of the Regulation and/or the Annex to its
Decision C(92) 1358/8 is correct, the absolute nature of those
provisions is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, those provisions contravene the principle of
legal certainty in that they are not sufficiently clearly and
precisely drafted and that, in these circumstances, it is submit-
ted that, by virtue of Article 241 EC, the provisions of the
Regulation and the Decision are inapplicable against the United
Kingdom.

The Applicant maintains that the decision of the Commission
contained in its letter of 22 November 2002 does not disclose
the principle issues of law and of fact upon which it is based
and should therefore be annulled on grounds of lack of
reasoning.

Action brought on 10 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Republic

(Case C-48/03)

(2003/C 70/28)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 February 2003 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, acting
as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/16/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
the Council of 10 April 2000 amending Council Directive
79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs
and Council Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed
materials, and, in any event, by failing to inform the
Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned direc-
tive;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

2) T h e D e c i s i o n

r e c o v e r y
t o
9 2 7 2 7 6 7 E u r o s o f E R D F A s s i s t a n c e

s e e k

o f

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant submits that the decision letter of 22 November
2002 by which the Commission notified the United Kingdom
that it was obliged to issue a recovery order for the sum of
9 272 767 Euros should be annulled on the following grounds:

— that

the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
interpretation and/or made a manifest error of assess-
ment;

— that the decision contravened the principles of good
administration, Community solidarity, regional partner-
ship and the principle of cooperation between Com-
munity institutions and Member States (Article 10 EC);

— lack of adequate reasoning.

( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161,
26.06.1999, p. 1).

The period for transposition expired on 2 May 2001.

(1) OJ 2000 L 105, p. 36.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court
of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against
Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et
Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)

(Case C-49/03)

(2003/C 70/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de