27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/22

(Case T-657/14)

2014/C 380/29

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—annul the decision of 27 June 2014 interrupting the payment deadline in respect of the statement of expenditure and applications for payment No 21 in relation to the operational programme for research, development and innovation, Technology Fund-ERDF, sent by Spain on 26 December 2013, and initiating the suspension procedure, and

—order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the decision interrupting [the payment deadline] and initiating the suspension procedure infringed Article 87(2), in conjunction with Articles 91 and 92 of Council Regulation 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

—It is claimed in this regard, that the period referred to in Article 87(2) is a limitation period that prevents the Commission from adopting a decision interrupting the payment deadline once the two month period has expired and, therefore, does not permit a suspension of payments procedure to be initiated either.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the decision interrupting [the payment deadline] and initiating the suspension procedure was adopted outside the period set by EU law and was in breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration. It had a detrimental budgetary and financial impact on the Kingdom of Spain, which trusted in good faith that it would obtain payment within the prescribed period.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 91(1)(a) of Regulation 1083/2006 through non-compliance with the rules laid down in that regulation for that decision to be validly adopted.

—It is claimed in this regard, that the decision interrupting [the payment deadline] was not based on an audit report, as required by the provision in question, but on a mere draft, which cannot be regarded as a definitive document capable of substantiating a decision interrupting [the payment deadline]. Furthermore, the draft in question does not contain evidence, still less proof, of serious deficiencies in the management and control system.