This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0549
Case T-549/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission
Case T-549/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission
Case T-549/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission
IO C 44, 21.2.2009, p. 60–60
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.2.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 44/60 |
Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission
(Case T-549/08)
(2009/C 44/103)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: M. Fisch, agent and P. Kinsch, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the contested decisions; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5383 of 24 September 2008 on the suspension of interim payments from the European Social Fund (ESF) to the single programming document for Community structural interventions falling under Objective No 3 to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and Commission Decision C(2008) 5730 of 6 October 2008 on the suspension of interim payments from the Community initiative to combat discrimination and inequality in the employment market (EQUAL) to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law:
|
— |
an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the Commission concluded, when two preventive audits of the Luxembourg system of management and monitoring were carried out prior to the programming period concerned, that that system provided sufficient safeguards of compliance with the current rules and the generally accepted criteria of good management; only when an audit was carried out after expiry of the programming period concerned did the Commission come to unfavourable conclusions about the system of management and monitoring; |
|
— |
an incorrect interpretation of the regulatory provisions on which the contested decisions are based (1), since those provisions do not preclude, contrary to what Commission has claimed, (i) the managing authority and the payment authority belonging to the same institution and (ii) the national managing authority submitting to the Commission a statement of expenditure as to which doubt may well exist, but which at the time of statement has not been proved to merit being legally classified as ineligible; |
|
— |
substantive inaccuracy in some of the facts on which the contested decisions are based as to record keeping by the managing authority. |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21).