![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Provincia di Imperia v Commission (Social policy) [2008] EUECJ T-351/05 (14 February 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2008/T35105.html Cite as: [2008] EUECJ T-351/05, [2008] EUECJ T-351/5 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
(European Social Fund Community financial assistance in the field of innovative measures under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 Call for proposals Rejection of the proposal)
In Case T-351/05,
Provincia di Imperia (Italy), represented by S. Rostagno and K. Platteau, lawyers,
applicant,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and A. Weimar, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 June 2005 not to accept the proposal 2005/VP021/20293 submitted by the Provincia di Imperia in response to the call for proposals VP/2003/021 concerning 'Innovative measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation: 'Innovative Approaches to the Management of Change' and any measure related to that decision,
composed of M. Vilaras, President, E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges,
Registrar: K. Pocheć, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 March 2007,
gives the following
Legal context
'1. At the initiative of the Commission and following consultation of the committees referred to in Articles 48 to 51 on the guidelines for the various types of innovative actions, subject to a ceiling of 0.40% of their respective annual funding, the Funds may finance innovative actions at Community level. These shall include studies, pilot projects and exchanges of experience.
Such innovative actions shall contribute to the preparation of innovative methods and practices designed to improve the quality of assistance under Objectives 1, 2 and 3. They shall be implemented in a simple, transparent fashion and in accordance with the principles of sound financial management.
2. Each field of action for pilot projects shall be financed by one fund only. The decision on the contribution of a fund may amplify the scope of each fund as defined in the Regulations specific to each fund, but without broadening it, to include all measures required to implement the pilot project concerned.'
'1. Making use of information on innovative actions from the Member States concerned, the Commission shall appraise applications for a contribution from the Funds pursuant to Articles 22 and 23 on the basis of the following details:
(a) a description of the proposed assistance, its scope, including geographical coverage, and specific aims;
(b) the bodies to be responsible for implementing the assistance and the beneficiaries;
(c) the timetable and financing plan, including contributions from any other source of Community finance;
(d) provisions to ensure efficient and correct implementation;
(e) any other information necessary to verify compatibility with Community policies and with the guidelines referred to in Article 10(3).
The Commission shall approve the contribution of the Funds when this information enables it to appraise the application.
2. The Member States concerned shall be immediately notified by the Commission following approval of an application.
3. The financial liability of the Member States within the meaning of this Regulation shall not be engaged for the innovative actions referred to in Article 22 or the technical assistance measures referred to in Article 23, without prejudice to their obligations arising out of the institutional arrangements specific to each Member State.'
process-oriented innovations. These cover the development of new methods, tools or approaches as well as the improvement of existing methods;
goal-oriented innovations. These centre around the formulation of new objectives including approaches to identifying new and promising qualifications and the opening up of new areas of employment in the labour market;
context-oriented innovations. These relate to political and institutional structures and are concerned with system development in connection with the labour market.
'There are three deadlines for making an application under this call for proposals, as follows:
...
The deadline for the second round of applications is 26 January 2005. Grant agreements will be signed, in principle, in September 2005. Projects may start between 1 October 2005 and 30 November 2005, but not before the grant agreement has been signed. The maximum duration of projects will be 24 months and projects must finish between 30 September 2007 and 29 November 2007.
The deadline for the third round of applications is 25 January 2006. Grant agreements will be signed, in principle, in September 2006. Projects may start between 1 October 2006 and 30 November 2006, but not before the grant agreement has been signed. The maximum duration of projects will be 24 months and projects must finish between 30 September 2008 and 29 November 2008.'
'Every application that passes the above checks [set out in paragraphs 27, 29 and 31] will be evaluated to assess the quality and feasibility of the proposed actions, against the following criteria:
...
innovative aspects of the proposal, in particular as regards the objectives and implementation of the project, including how the proposal differs from or builds on the normal activities of the organisations involved;
...
extent to which there is a match between the cost of items detailed in the budget estimate and the activities in the project description and work programme in the Grant Application.'
Background to the dispute
'As regards your proposal, it has been decided that it does not satisfy the evaluation criteria in the call for proposals. That is due, in particular, to the following reasons: the proposal does not succeed in explaining the way in which it elaborates and takes into consideration the experience previously acquired in that sector in Liguria. There are serious inconsistencies between the budget information provided in Annex 6 and that provided in Annex 7.'
'1. As regards the first point, it is correct that 32 pages describe the floricultural 'cluster', but that mere description does not succeed in explaining to us how you will manage to build and develop your new project on the basis of your previous experience and does not in end effect succeed [in] proposing an innovation.
2. The documents which you have sent by the deadlines specified (the only documents taken into account in the selection procedure) contain inconsistencies in the financial data. Although Annex 6 contains a total amount of EUR 2 029 599.[9]9, Annex 7 contains a total amount of EUR 2 109 599.99 (a significant difference of EUR 80 000).'
Procedure and forms of order sought
annul the contested decision and any related measure;
order the Commission to pay the costs.
dismiss the action as unfounded;
make an appropriate order as to costs.
The admissibility of the action
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
Substance
The first plea in law
Arguments of the parties
Admissibility of the plea
Substance
Findings of the Court
Table 1 (setting out the cost of the activities in the grant application drawn up according to the model in Annex 6 to the Applicant's Guide)
Phase |
D 1 Staff (in euro) |
D 2 Travel (in euro) |
D 3 Activities/ (in euro) |
D 4 Administration (in euro) |
D 1+D 2+D 3+D 4 Totals (in euro) |
||||
1 |
395 012,46 |
22 160,00 |
34 200,00 |
451 372,46 |
|||||
2 |
185 856,75 |
12 540,00 |
51 840,00 |
250 236,75 |
|||||
3 |
161 292,86 |
15 820,00 |
73 840,00 |
250 952,86 |
|||||
4 |
255 457,85 |
12 560,00 |
116 000,00 |
384 017,85 |
|||||
5 |
226 150,62 |
25 600,00 |
50 356,00 |
302 106,62 |
|||||
6 |
67 474,05 |
15 420,00 |
32 000,00 |
114 894,05 |
|||||
7 |
64 574,40 |
19 950,00 |
191 495,00 |
276 019,40 |
|||||
Total |
1 355 818,99 |
124 050,00 |
499 375,00 |
50 356,00 |
2 029 599,99 |
Table 2 (setting out the cost of the entries mentioned in the budget estimate compiled according to the model in Annex 7 to the Applicant's Guide)
D 1 Staff (in euro) |
1 355 818,99 |
D 2 Travel (in euro) |
124 050,00 |
D 3 Activities/services (in euro) |
499 375,00 |
D 4 Administration (in euro) |
50 356,00 |
Total Direct costs (D 1 Ã D 4) |
2 029 599,99 |
Total Indirect costs (I.1) |
80 000,00 |
Total expenditure Project total - (D+I) |
2 109 599,99 |
The second plea
Arguments of the parties
Admissibility of the plea
Substance
Findings of the Court
Costs
On those grounds,
Hereby:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders the Provincia di Imperia to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
Vilaras |
Martins Ribeiro |
Jürimäe |
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 February 2008.
E. Coulon |
M. Vilaras |
Registrar |
President |
* Language of the case: French.