This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0070
Case T-70/09: Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Netherlands v Commission
Case T-70/09: Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Netherlands v Commission
Case T-70/09: Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Netherlands v Commission
OJ C 90, 18.4.2009, p. 34–34
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.4.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 90/34 |
Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-70/09)
2009/C 90/52
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. Noort, Agents)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul in part Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region coming under objective 2 — no 97.07.13.003 — granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997, in so far as the former decision relates to the 2% flat-rate adjustment to the budget in the amount of EUR 1 139 346,24 which was applied and the expenditure amounting in total to NLG 1 160 456 which it was declared could not be subsidised; and |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its application the Netherlands first alleges infringement of the principle of legal certainty in that obligations are imposed on a Member State on the basis of case-law of the Court of Justice which post-dates the imposition of those obligations and which at that moment were not clear, precise and foreseeable for the Member State concerned.
In the alternative, the Netherlands alleges infringement of the principle that reasons must be given by virtue of the fact that no more detailed grounds were provided as to the nature of the cross-border interest of the project in question, that project having in the interim been approved and the value of which fell below the thresholds laid down in the public procurement directives.
In conclusion, the Netherlands alleges a breach of Article 211 EC by reason of the fact that the Commission applied a flat-rate reduction of 2% on the ground of the alleged failure to comply with the national conditions governing the project, even though the Commission has power only in respect of compliance with the Community conditions.