Case T-176/06: Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Community support framework, European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, action for annulment (EU), aid to undertakings, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 190/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

In support of their claims, the applicants argue:

Form of order sought by the applicant

— infringement of the second and fourth subparagraphs of
Article 9(2) of Regulation No 729/70 in that, firstly, the
inspection carried out by UCLAF in Jordan is open to chal-
lenge since it exceeded the limits of its supervisory powers,
which are confined to the territory of the Member States,
and, secondly, UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare
and conduct inspections and supervision with the prior
agreement of the Member States and in the presence of the
representatives of all the national authorities concerned.

— Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of
Regulation No 2988/95 and of Article 4 of Regulation No
2185/96 in that UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare
on-the-spot checks and inspections in close collaboration
with the Member States and to inform the competent
national authorities before carrying out such checks.

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation No 3665/87 in
that UCLAF disregarded the probative value recognised and
conferred by that regulation on a series of expressly listed
documents and arbitrarily gave preference to a series of
other documents, undermining the principle of
legal
certainty and the transparency of checks.

The applicants also plead infringement of the principles of
good administration, diligence and proportionality and breach
of professional secrecy.

Lastly, the applicants state that, even if UCLAF's conduct may
not be open to censure, UCLAF is none the less liable for
causing the applicants loss. The latter could not reasonably
foresee, and therefore prevent,
the damage that would be
caused to them by an investigation which, they assert, proved
to be wholly erroneous.

Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Sviluppo Italia Basili-
cata v Commission

(Case T-176/06)

(2006/C 190/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata S.p.A. (Potenza, Italy) (repre-
sented by: Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— that

the Court of First

Instance should annul Decision

C(2006) of the European Commission of 20 April 2006

— that the Court should order the Commission to pay the

costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

in

the

financial

assistance

The decision challenged in this action has brought about a
considerable
of
correction
EUR 5 600 000 granted by the European Regional Develop-
ment Fund (ERDF) to the overall subsidy BIC Basilicata in order
to put into action measures to encourage small and medium-
sized undertakings operating in the Regione Basilicata, in the
sphere of the Community framework of support for the Objec-
tive 1 regions in Italy. In particular, measure 2 of the overall
subsidy provided for the setting up of a venture capital fund
for the distribution of financial assistance in the shape of hold-
ings of share capital, shareholders' loans and convertible deben-
ture stock in favour of undertakings situated in Basilicata or
intending to set up in that region.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— that the contested decision is completely wanting any legal
and factual grounds, in so far as the defendant considers, in
point of fact, that there has in the circumstances been no
actual fall in the assistance provided by the Fund, in that
less than 3 % of the ERDF's funds has been used to take up
shares in undertakings (requirement of usefulness). On this
head, the applicant maintains that that condition was not
provided for either by the rules applicable to the circum-
stances of the case, contained in the decision awarding the
aid, or by the general rules on structural funds. As a result,
the Commission could not lawfully conclude that there
existed irregularities within the meaning of Article 24 of
Regulation No 4253/88, relying on the requirement of
usefulness

— contravention of Decision 97/322/EC, for want of taking
into consideration and misinterpretation of paragraph C of
data-sheet 19. Here, the applicant considers that the defen-
dant has failed to take into account, in the contested deci-
sion, on the one hand, the distinction between ‘commit-
ment’ and ‘expenditure’ and, on the other, the provisions in
the data-sheet relating to the duration of the Fund, and also
the provisions laid down in the draft overall subsidy which
formed an integral part of that decision approving the aid,
and determined the actual duration of that particular assis-
tance at ten years

— failure to comply with the procedures laid down by the
Agreement, Article 25 of Regulation No 4253/88 or Article
26 of Regulation No 2082/93 in the finding of irregulari-
ties.

The applicant, at the end of its application, also alleges breach
of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of
legal certainty, of proportionality and of the requirement to
state reasons.