Case T-444/07: Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Centre de Promotion de l'Emploi par la Micro-Entreprise v Commission
Date: 2007-12-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European Social Fund, France, action for annulment (EU), judicial investigation, rights of the defence

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/29

As a result, the applicant claims that a prima facie infringement
of competition law existed and that
the unreasonable long
period of 9 to 21 months which elapsed, depending on the
the complaint, between the Commission's
subject-matter of
receipt of the letter of formal notice and the Commission's inac-
tion constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232
EC.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
(OJ L 83, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 1, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating
to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Arti-
cles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 123,
p. 18).

Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Centre de
par
v
Promotion de
Commission

la Micro-Entreprise

l'Emploi

(Case T-444/07)

(2008/C 37/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre de Promotion de l'Emploi par la Micro-Entre-
prise (CPEM) (Marseilles, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of
4 October 2007, cancelling the assistance granted by the
European Social Fund (ESF) to finance an ESF subsidy in
France
(CPEM) by Decision No C(1999) 2645 of
17 August 1999;

— acknowledgement of a right to damages for public detriment
to the reputation of a body acting in the context of a task of
general interest (estimated at EUR 100 000);

— acknowledgement of the right of CPEM's staff to individual
symbolic damages of one Euro for interference with their
peace of mind at work (threat to the future of their employ-
ment
since to pay
EUR 1 000 000 would mean the closure of the CPEM and
the MSD);

structure and thus

to their

jobs,

— repayment of lawyers' fees and the costs of legal assistance

made necessary, proof of which can be provided.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission
Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007,
cancelling,
following an OLAF report,
the assistance granted by the
European Social Fund (1) to finance, by way of a global subsidy,
a pilot project carried out by the applicant.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two groups of
pleas in law,
the first concerning the way in which OLAF
carried out the investigation and enquiry procedure leading to
the contested decision and alleging breach of the rights of the
defence and the other pleas in law concerning the substance of
the contested decision.

First, the applicant claims that the form of the enquiry which
OLAF carried out was in breach of a number of principles of
Community law and of a dispassionate investigation, such as the
presumption of innocence and the right to know the actual and
specific content of the accusations contained in the complaints
on which the proceedings were based. It claims, moreover, that
laid down by Regulation
OLAF confused the procedures
No 2185/96 (2) with those concerning enquiries under Regu-
lation No 2988/95 (3). Second, the applicant alleges that OLAF
based the conclusions for which it was responsible on the
different and changing editions of the ‘Promoter's Guide’.

As to substance,
the Commission
the applicant alleges that
based its decision on the conclusions of the OLAF report, which
‘non-profit
seriously infringed the French law concepts of
making organisations’ and ‘secondment’. Moreover,
it claims
that OLAF asserted against it the superiority of the ‘Promoter's
Guide’ to the content of a Community regulation. It also claims
that the Commission was aware of this and even authorised the
facts which were alleged against the applicant by OLAF and in
the contested decision. Lastly, the applicant relies on a plea in
law alleging that Regulation No 1605/2002 (4), on which part
of OLAF's reasoning and the contested decision are based,
is
inapplicable and not capable of being relied on against it.

(1) Commission Decision C (1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999 amended

by Decision C (2001) 2144 of 18 September 2001.

(2) Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November
1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by
the Commission in order to protect the European Communities'
financial
irregularities
fraud
(OJ 1996 L 292, p. 2).

interests

against

other

and

(3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
the European Communities financial

1995 on the protection of
interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).