EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010TB0116

Case T-116/10: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — North Rhine-Westphalia Programme — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

IO C 369, 30.10.2017, p. 18–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/18


Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-116/10) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - North Rhine-Westphalia Programme - Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))

(2017/C 369/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by J. Möller, subsequently by J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents, and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10675 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Objective 2 North Rhine-Westphalia Programme (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1120 of 7 May 1997.

Operative part of the order

1.

Commission Decision C(2009) 10675 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Objective 2 North Rhine-Westphalia Programme (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1120 of 7 May 1997 is annulled.

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


Top