CELEX: C2006/178/69
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-154/06: Action brought on  5 June 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

29.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/38
            
         Action brought on 5 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-154/06)
   (2006/C 178/69)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against Commission Decision C(2006)1171 of 23 March 2006 concerning a reduction in assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted by Decision C(95) 2194 of 28 September 1995, subsequently amended by Decision C(2000) 2862 of 26 January 2001, for an operational programme in the Region of Sicily forming part of the Community support framework for structural assistance under Objective 1 in Italy for the period 1994 to 1999. In that decision, the defendant decided to reduce the financing of that programme by approximately EUR 115 million because the national authorities had failed to provide adequate clarification on certain aspects of their request for final payment.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits:
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, (1) on the basis that the Commission did not reduce the funding following a ‘suitable examination of the case’, as required under that provision. It merely adopted the conclusions of an internal control body in the Sicilian regional administration, which had raised doubts as to whether certain projects were being properly managed.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the same provision of the abovementioned regulation in that the defendant based its decision merely on the fact that the national authorities did not deal with its requests for observations in detail and did not ascertain whether there were in fact any actual irregularities.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Articles 23 and 24 of the abovementioned Regulation No 4253/88 and Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 of 15 October 1997 establishing detailed arrangements for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as regards the financial control by Member States of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds. (2) The applicant submits that, in essence, the Commission adopted the conclusions set out by the national internal control body in the statement required under Article 8 of Regulation No 2064/97, even though that statement was merely an indicatory summary. The Commission should, instead, have carried out its own independent inquiries.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of essential procedural requirements in that, firstly, the defendant did not allow the national authorities sufficient time to carry out an adequate examination of the documentation and, secondly, the contested decision was based on only some of the documents produced by the national authorities in the course of that procedure and disregarded the most relevant of those documents.
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 374, 31.12.1998, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 1.