Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2010 – CPEM v Commission
(Case C‑350/09 P)
Appeal – European Social Fund – Financial assistance – Cancellation
1.Appeals – Grounds – Claims unsupported by any specific plea in law – Inadmissibility (Art. 225(1)(2) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 33-36)
2.Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 40-44)
3.Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Admissibility – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para 51)
4.Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para 72)
5.Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Application to all proceedings brought against a person that may lead to an act adversely affecting that person – Principle that must be guaranteed even when there are no rules governing the proceedings in question – Scope (see paras 75-79)
Re:
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2009 in Case T–444/07 | CPEM | v | Commission | dismissing the appellant’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999 – Microprojects promoting employment and social cohesion – Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of equal treatment – Failure to take into account the concept of ‘co-responsibility’ – Failure to observe the principle of legal certainty as a result of the existence of several different versions of the ‘Promoter’s Guide’ – Doubts as to the applicability of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) on which OLAF’s decision was based. |
Operative part:
The Court:
1. |
| Dismisses the appeal; |
2. |
| Orders the Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) to pay the costs. |