Case T-53/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Aecops v Commission
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European Social Fund, Portugal, action for annulment, balance of payments assistance, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2011139EN.01002002.xml










7.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/20





Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Aecops v Commission
(Case T-53/11)
2011/C 139/39
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: AECOPS — Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in accordance with and for the purpose of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 relating to file No 89 0771 P1, reducing to PTE 48 504 201 the amount of the assistance granted by Commission Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 and. at the same time, requiring reimbursement of the amount of EUR 628 880,97;










—


order the European Commission to pay both its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on @@ plea(s) in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to observe a reasonable time-limit within which to take the decision, as a result of which:






—


the proceedings are time-barred: the applicant maintains that the contested decision was adopted after the elapse of the period of four years fixed for the limitation of proceedings, as provided for by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Likewise, even if there had been an interruption to the running of the limitation period for the proceedings, twice the limitation period had elapsed without any decision’s having been adopted, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation. The contested decision must be considered unlawful and incapable of being given effect, for the exercise of the corresponding right is time-barred;










—


breach of the principle of legal certainty: the applicant takes the view that the fact of the Commission’s having let more than 20 years go by between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision entailed disregard for the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of the legal order of the European Union states that all persons have the right to have the matters concerning them dealt with by the institutions of the Union within a reasonable period;










—


breach of rights of defence: the applicant claims that its rights of defence have been breached, inasmuch as, seeing that more than 20 years passed between the occurrence of the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the applicant was deprived of any chance of submitting its observations in good time, that is to say, at a time when it still held documents that might have enabled it to explain the expenditure considered ineligible by the Commission.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons: the applicant argues that the contested decision does not satisfy the obligation to state reasons imposed by Article 296 TFEU. The contested decision does not explain, even summarily, what reasons led to the reduction of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund, nor does the letter of the European Social Fund Management Institute notifying the applicant of the contested decision explain, in an even remotely comprehensible manner, the reasons prompting the reduction of that assistance or which expenditure was, and which was not, eligible. In the applicant’s view, the defect of want of reasoning must lead the Court to annul the contested decision.