Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of event causing time to run – Burden of proof

(Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 102(2))

2. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Act neither published nor notified to the applicant – Precise knowledge of the content and grounds – Obligation to request the full text of the act within a reasonable period once there is knowledge of its existence

(Art. 230, fifth para., EC)

3. Actions for annulment – Contested measure – Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure

(Art. 230 EC)

4. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training – Commission decision based on Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 – Evaluation of complex facts and accounts – Judicial review – Limits

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1))

5. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions

6. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training – Accuracy of facts and accounts in final payment claims to be certified by the Member States – Subsequent reassessment of such claims by a specialised body – Whether permitted

(Council Regulation No 2950/83; Council Decision 83/516)

7. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training – Improper use of funds – Nature of disciplinary measures under Community law – Not criminal law penalties – Criminal proceedings discontinued by the national authorities – Legitimate expectation of payment – No such expectation – Possibility for the Commission to examine a possible reduction

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6)

8. Community law – Principles – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Administrative procedure – Criteria for assessment – Delays attributable to a Member State – Not relevant

Summary

1. It is for the party pleading that the action is out of time to provide evidence of the date on which the event causing time to begin to run occurred. Consequently, mere surprise on the part of that party cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the Community judicature to hold that the action is inadmissible. Moreover, the addressee cannot be criticised for the delay of the national authorities in notifying it of the contested decision.

(see para. 54)

2. Where a party becomes aware of the existence of an act which concerns him, in particular by means of the communication of a letter setting out in an unequivocal manner the Commission’s final position, it is obliged to request the full text of that act within a reasonable period, in order to acquire precise knowledge of its content and its grounds, failing which the action will be inadmissible. If only a draft decision was communicated to it, on which it submitted its observations, it is not obliged to inquire whether the contested decision has been adopted.

(see para. 55)

3. In an action for annulment brought on the basis of Article 230 EC, the lawfulness of a Community measure falls to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact brought to the attention of the institution at the time when the measure was adopted.

(see para. 70)

4. Since the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516 on the tasks of the European Social Fund may render it necessary for the Commission to undertake an evaluation of complex facts and accounts, it enjoys a considerable measure of latitude in such matters. Consequently, the Community judicature’s assessment of that evaluation must be confined to verifying that the Commission did not commit a manifest error in assessing the information in question.

(see para. 75)

5. Three conditions must be satisfied in order to claim entitlement to the protection of legitimate expectations. First, precise, unconditional and consistent assurances originating from authorised and reliable sources must have been given to the person concerned by the Community authorities. Second, those assurances must be such as to give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom they are addressed. Third, the assurances given must comply with the applicable rules.

(see para. 102)

6. It follows from Article 2(2) of Decision 83/516 on the tasks of the European Social Fund that the relevant Member States are to guarantee the successful completion of the operations financed by the Fund. In addition, under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516, the Commission may make checks of final payment claims ‘without prejudice to any controls carried out by the Member States’. Those obligations and powers of the Member States are not limited by any restriction in time. It follows that certification, for the purposes of the second sentence of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2950/83, of the accuracy of the facts and accounts in the final payment claim in respect of a training operation does not preclude a Member State from undertaking a subsequent reassessment of the final payment claim. Moreover, in order to undertake that reassessment, there is nothing to preclude the Member State from having recourse to a specialist auditing body.

(see para. 104)

7. The fact that the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant were discontinued cannot found the applicant’s alleged legitimate expectation of payment of the assistance. It is apparent from Article 6 of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516 on the tasks of the European Social Fund that Community legislation does not classify the improper use of European Social Fund assistance as a criminal offence Consequently, while the principle of sound administration requiring a Community institution to make decisions with full knowledge of the relevant facts justifies the Commission suspending its final decision when a national court finds it necessary to rule on whether there has been fraud, it does not however prevent the Commission from examining whether it might reduce its assistance on the basis of the administrative investigation of a specialised body, following the discontinuance of proceedings on limitation grounds.

(see para. 108)

8. The question whether the length of an administrative proceeding is reasonable must be determined in relation to the particular circumstances of each case and, in particular, the background to the case, the various procedural stages followed, the complexity of the case and its importance for the various parties involved. The sequence of events, characterised by the interrelationship of the judicial and administrative proceedings, at both national and Community level, and the fact that it was ultimately impossible for the Commission to rely on a judgment given in criminal proceedings indicate that each of the procedural stages prior to the adoption of the contested decision proceeded within a reasonable period. Moreover, the contested decision was notified in good time by the Commission to the addressee. If the Member State, whose obligation it is to inform the applicant of the decision, delays in notifying that decision, the Commission cannot be held responsible for that delay, whilst only delays attributable to the Commission could lead to the conclusion that that institution failed to act within a reasonable period.

(see paras 114, 120, 122)