CELEX: C2007/297/46
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-455/07 P: Appeal brought on 9 October 2007 by Ente per le Ville Vesuviane against the judgment delivered on 18 July 2007 in Case T-189/02 Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities

8.12.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/28
            
         Appeal brought on 9 October 2007 by Ente per le Ville Vesuviane against the judgment delivered on 18 July 2007 in Case T-189/02 Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-455/07 P)
   (2007/C 297/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Ente per le Ville Vesuviane (represented by: E. Soprano, avvocato)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               set aside in part, in accordance with the pleas set out below, the judgment under appeal and, consequently, declare void Decision D(2002) 810111, prot. 102504 of 13 March 2002 of the Directorate General for Regional Policy of the European Commission, and if necessary and in so far as is reasonable, Memorandum No Gt/SF/MF D(01) 810542, prot. 109720 of 12 October 2001 of the Directorate General for Regional Policy of the European Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, annul in part, in accordance with the pleas set out below, the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a ruling on the substance of the dispute in the light of the directions which the Court sees fit to give for that purpose;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the costs of both the present proceedings and the proceedings at first instance in Case T-189/02.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   (1)   Error of law, failure to make inquiries and failure to state reasons with regard to Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88 (1) as amended
   The assistance acquired by the appellant and financed by the ERDF was uniform in nature, as confirmed by the wording of both the Commission decision of 18 December 1986, by which the contribution which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings was granted, and Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 (2) (Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88 as amended).
   Accordingly, it follows that the assistance in question could not be divided into functional portions — as held, wrongly, by the Court of First Instance — and that therefore the suspension for judicial reasons even of just one part of that assistance, shown in the completion times for the same, required the entitlement introduced by Article 12 to be extended to the entire project financed by the decision of 18 December 1986.
   (2)   Error of law, failure to make inquiries and infringement of the rights of the defence with regard to Article 4 of the Commission decision of 18 December 1986
   Contrary to what is stated in the judgment under appeal, in the proceedings at first instance the Ente per le Ville Vesuviane had documentary evidence that the works being carried out at the Villa Ruggiero (one of the three villas which are the subject-matter of the financial assistance in the decision of 18 December 1986) had been suspended for judicial reasons from 1989 through the whole of 1996, and therefore had not been completed in 1992, as maintained by the Italian State authorities.
   In that regard, as indeed earlier before the Court of First Instance, the participation of the Ente in the proceedings prior to the adoption of the measure challenged at first instance would therefore certainly have been decisive, given that the Commission, faced with the documentary evidence referred to above — which would of course have been provided, if necessary, by the appellant — and in consideration of the uniform nature of the assistance realised by the latter, would certainly have recognised that the exception provided for in Article 12 of Regulation No 4254/88 as amended applied to the assistance in question, amd that the assistance granted in 1986 could not be ended early.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 15).
   
      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/898 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 34).