CELEX: C2003/007/49
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-341/02: Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 7/25
—     order the defendant to bear their own costs and to pay             Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona
      those incurred by the applicants.                                  Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                     munities
                                                                                                  (Case T-341/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (2003/C 7/49)
SEGI and its two representatives are seeking compensation for
the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the abovementioned                              (Language of the case: Italian)
association’s name having been included in the list of terrorist
persons, groups and bodies, pursuant to Common Position
2001/931/CFSP (1), adopted on 27 December 2001, confirmed
by Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (2) adopted on
2 May 2001, and Council Common Position 2002/940/
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
CFSP (3) adopted on 17 June 2002.
                                                                         the European Communities on 14 November 2002 by the
                                                                         Regiona Siciliana, represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the
common position, which is the subject-matter of the action, is
vitiated by a number of irregularities, namely breach of a               The applicant claims that the Court should:
number of fundamental rights, liberties and principles, protect-
ed under the Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, such as the right to the presumption of              —     annul the Commission’s decision No 109206 of 5 Sep-
innocence, the right to a proper hearing, in so far as there is                tember 2002 on the closure of the major project ‘Messina-
no means of challenging the common position in question                        Palermo motorway’ (ERDF No 93.05.03.001 — ARINCO
through the courts, the right to freedom of speech, in particular              No 93.IT.16.009) and order the Commission of the
so far as concerns the right to self-determination and the                     European Communities to pay the costs
search for a solution to the Basque conflict by negotiation, and
the right to privacy.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants also claim that the procedure for the adoption
of Decision 2001/931/CFSP was unlawful in that on
27 December 2001 the Council adopted four measures to
combat terrorism and to define the list of terrorist persons,            The contested decision, which concerns the major project
groups and bodies. However, those four measures are closely              ‘Messina-Palermo motorway’ partly financed by contributions
linked and it is impossible to understand one without know-              from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), closed
ledge of the other three. Moreover, it would appear that                 the intervention procedure and decided that the costs of the
the European Parliament was consulted only in relation to                instalments which had been completed by the date of adoption
Regulation No 2580/2001 and not the other measures,                      of the decision were eligible. Consequently the decision
in particular Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The latter                  concluded that there would be a settlement of the ERDF
measures, although they are, in formal terms, common                     contribution by unblocking EUR 26 378 246 with a balance
positions, contain provisions which fall within the scope of             to be recovered of EUR 58 036 177.
JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) or which reflect framework
decisions or positions which should have been the subject
of consultation with the European Parliament, pursuant to
Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union.                           In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the
                                                                         following arguments:
The applicants also allege breach of the rights of the defence           —     The contested decision is ultra vires in so far as it appears
and of the obligation to provide reasons.                                      to have been issued by the Director General for Regional
                                                                               Policy instead of by the Commission itself. Additionally,
                                                                               in the decisions of 22 December 1993 and 28 July 1995
                                                                               adopted earlier in the course of the project, the deadline
( 1) OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 93.                                           by which costs had to have been incurred in order to be
( 2) OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.                                             eligible for cofinancing was fixed as 31 December 1997,
( 3) OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.                                            whereas in the contested decision the eligibility of costs
                                                                               was for the first time correlated to the functionality,
                                                                               within a reasonable period of time, of the works in
                                                                               respect of which the costs were incurred.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/26                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11.1.2003
—    Infringement and erroneous application of Articles 24                  completion or functionality of the works. Those require-
     and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December                   ments were introduced in the closure proposal of
     1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regu-                     22 December 2001, whilst the works were in full progress
     lation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of                     and the managers responsible had already submitted the
     the activities of the different Structural Funds between               relevant certificates. The contested decision then sets out
     themselves and with the operations of the European                     an interpretation of the functionality of the works which,
     Investment Bank and the other existing financial instru-               even though more favourable than that set out in the
     ments as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/                  closure proposal, departs from the rules originally laid
     93 of 20 July 1993 ( 1).                                               down for the eligibility for Community cofinancing of
                                                                            the costs incurred.
—    The actions at issue are contradictory and infringe the
     principle of protection of legitimate expectation. It is
     submitted in this regard that, for the purposes of the           Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty to state
                                                                      reasons.
     decisions of 28 July 1995 cited above, the costs incurred
     prior to 31 December 1997 could benefit from
     cofinancing without containing any reference to the              (1 ) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1 and OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20 respectively.