26.11.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/30

Action brought on 7 September 2005 — Provincia di Imperia v Commission

(Case T-351/05)

(2005/C 296/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Provincia di Imperia (Imperia, Italy) (represented by: S. Rostagno, lawyer, K. Platteau, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and any related act;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 June 2005 not to accept the proposal presented by the applicant in response to the call for proposals launched by the Commission in the context of Community co-financing in the sphere of innovative measures under Article 6 of the Regulation on the European Social Fund (1) for the planning period 2000-2006.

By the contested decision, the Commission informed the applicant that its proposal did not satisfy the evaluation criteria in the call for proposals. It based its decision on the fact that the applicant's proposal did not succeed in explaining the way in which it elaborates and takes into consideration the experience previously acquired in that sphere in Liguria and claimed that there are serious inconsistencies between the budget information supplied in Annex 6 and that supplied in Annex 7.

The applicant challenges the decision on two main points:

—

it maintains that, contrary to the findings of the contested decision, there are no serious inconsistencies in the budget information supplied in the annexes to its proposal, in that it follows the model of a claim for subsidy published in the Applicant's Guide and the annex thereto forming an integral part of the call for proposals. The applicant does not dispute the existence of the difference between the budget information supplied in Annex 6 and that supplied in Annex 7, but maintains that that difference relates to the structure and the different information requested in both annexes; whereas Annex 6 provides only an indication of the direct eligible expenditure, Annex 7b requires the applicant to indicate both direct eligible expenditure and indirect eligible expenditure. The applicant claims, first, that there is no inconsistency between Annexes 6 and 7 to its proposal and, second, that its proposal complies meticulously and on all points with the model established by the Commission.

—

the applicant also contends that it demonstrated sufficiently the way in which the proposal elaborates and takes into consideration the experience previously acquired in the sphere to which the innovative measure in question relates. It claims that the alleged failure to explain the connection between the proposal and the experience previously acquired is based on a reading of only one part of its proposal. A reading of the proposal as a whole would show the opposite.

The applicant further alleges that by the contested decision the Commission infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it does not follow the rules it has itself established on the manner of establishing the innovative nature of the project. More specifically, in the applicant's submission, in assessing the innovative nature of its project, the confined itself to one of the evaluation criteria, namely its method of constructing and developing the new project on the basis of previous experience, whereas its project was innovative from the aspect of a different evaluation criterion, namely a departure from the ordinary activities of the organisations concerned, a criterion also accepted in the Applicant's Guide.

In support of its claims, the applicant also alleges that the contested decision infringes Article 53 of the EC Treaty, Article 6 of Regulation No 1784/1999, the rules laid down in Notice No COM (2000) 894 final (2) and also the rules established by the Commission in the context of its call for proposals (3). Last, the applicant maintains that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment of the facts, has misused its powers and has infringed the principle of legal certainty.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund OJ L 213, 13/08/1999, p. 5.

(2) Commission Notice of 12 January 2000 on the implementation of innovation measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation for the planning period 2000-2006.

(3) Notice entitled ‘Budget heading 04.021000.00.11 – Innovative measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation: “Innovative Approaches to the Management of Change” – Call for proposals VP/2003/021’, OJ 2004 C 255, p. 11, and the ruler fixed in the Applicant's Guide forming an integral part of that notice.