CELEX: 62012TN0031
Language: en
Date: 2012-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-31/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission

14.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 109/16
            
         Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission
   (Case T-31/12)
   2012/C 109/37
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Région Poitou-Charentes (Poitiers, France) (represented by: J. Capiaux, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the European Commission decision of 18 November 2011 refusing to close the Community initiative programme INTERREG III B ‘Atlantic Area’ 2000/2006 (reference CCI No 2001 RG 16 0 PC 006) adopted by the European Commission.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the Commission decision, in so far as the signatory of the measure was not entitled to a delegated right of signature.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging disregard of essential procedural requirements, the Commission not being compliant with the mandatory time-limit imposed by Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999 (1) for stating its reasons why the applicant's final report was unsatisfactory.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission having alleged that the applicant did not comply with the rules concerning approval of the final report, whereas the rules of the monitoring committee provided for a scheme of implicit approval of that report at the expiry of a six day time-limit; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission having stated that the applicant’s report should have been drafted in English, whereas there is no rule requiring that a report be drafted in a language other than that of the managing authority (in this case French) in order to be valid.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons for the contested decision.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power, the Commission having taken into account a ground which by its nature is extraneous to European interests in order to refuse to close the initiative programme in question.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).