Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2006-05-02
21. In that respect, it is sufficient to point out that the Court has already held that an action by a local or regional entity cannot be treated in the same way as an action by a Member State, the term Member State within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 230 EC referring only to government authorities of the Member States. That term cannot include the governments of regions or other local authorities within Member States without undermining the institutional balance provided for by the Treaty (order in Case C-180/97 Regione Toscana  v Commission  [1997] ECR I‑5245, paragraphs 6 and 8, and Case C-452/98 Nederlandse Antillen  v Council  [2001] ECR I‑8973, paragraph 50).
24. On the basis of that provision, a local or regional entity may, to the extent that it has – as does the Regione Siciliana – legal personality under national law, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to it or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to it (see Nederlandse Antillen  v Council , paragraph 51, and Case C‑142/00 P Commission  v Nederlandse Antillen  [2003] ECR I-3483, paragraph 59).
28. In order to reply to that argument, it should be borne in mind from the outset that, in accordance with settled case-law, the condition that the decision forming the subject-matter of the proceedings must be of direct concern to a natural or legal person, as laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires the contested Community measure to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules (see, in particular, Case C-404/96 P Glencore Grain  v Commission  [1998] ECR I-2435, paragraph 41, and Case C-486/01 P National Front  v Parliament [2004] ECR I‑6289, paragraph 34).
29. In the present case, as stated at paragraph 7 of this judgment, the annex to the decision to grant refers to the appellant’s designation as the authority responsible for the execution of the ERDF project.
30. However, there is nothing in the documents before the Court which leads to the conclusion that the appellant was directly concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, in that capacity. In that respect, it should be pointed out that the fact of being the authority responsible for the execution of the project, mentioned in the annex to the decision to grant, did not imply that the applicant was itself entitled to the financial assistance.
31. This analysis is not weakened by the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2052/88 and Article 9(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, relied upon by the appellant. In fact, those articles, which set out the principle that Community financial assistance is complementary to national assistance, are not relevant to cases in which the Commission has closed financial assistance.
32. It follows from the foregoing that the appellant was not directly concerned by the contested decision and that its action before the Court of First Instance was therefore inadmissible.
37. It should, on the other hand, be noted that the application of Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance does not guarantee that an oral procedure will take place, as the Court of First Instance may, under Article 114(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to which Article 113 of those rules refers, give judgment following a solely written procedure (Case C‑547/03 P AIT  v Commission  [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 35).It is apparent moreover from the contested order that the Court of First Instance had sufficient information on which to base its decision without hearing the oral arguments of the parties. It is apparent, finally, that the appellant presented its observations on the objection of inadmissibility in its reply.