Case C‑280/14 P

Italian Republic

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Regional policy — Regional operational programme (ROP) Puglia (Italy) covered by objective No 1 (2000-2006) — Reduction of the Community financial assistance initially granted by the European Regional Development Fund’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 3 December 2015

1. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Adversarial principle — Observance in the context of judicial proceedings — Scope

2. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the General Court — Admissibility

   (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

4. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

5. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — European Regional Development Fund — Clearance of accounts — Refusal to meet expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of EU law — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Shared by the Commission and the Member State

   (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Art. 38(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 24)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 26)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 42-44)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 51, 52)

5.  With regard to the clearance of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) accounts, in view of the structure of the management and control systems established in Article 38(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, under which the Member States are to take responsibility in the first instance for the financial control of ERDF assistance, the Member States are in fact best placed to collect and verify the data relating to that assistance.

   The Member State concerned, for its part, cannot rebut the findings that underpin such evidence of the Commission’s serious and reasonable doubt unless it substantiates its own assertions with evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. If it is not able to show that the Commission’s findings are inaccurate, the latter amount to evidence liable to give rise to serious doubts as to the existence of an adequate and effective series of supervisory measures and inspection procedures. Consequently, it is for the Member State concerned to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its checks have been carried out and its figures are accurate and, as the case may be, that the Commission’s assertions are incorrect.

   (see paras 63-66)