ECJ 1 In so far as a Member State confirms the accuracy of the facts and accounts in final payment claims in respect of a grant of financial assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), it is responsible to the Commission for the certifications which it submits.
Furthermore, given that Member States are under an obligation, pursuant to Article 2(2)of Decision 83/516 on the tasks of the ESF, to guarantee the successful completion of the operations financed, any certification under Article 5(4)of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516 must be regarded as being by nature an operation carried out by Member States subject to all reservations. A different interpretation would undermine the effectiveness of Article 7 of Decision 83/673 on the management of the ESF, which requires Member States to give notice of irregularities found in the management of operations to be financed through the ESF. In addition, the Commission may, under Article 7(1)of Regulation No 2950/83, check final payment claims, `without prejudice to any controls carried out by the Member States’. Those obligations and powers on the part of the Member States are not limited by any restriction in time. Consequently, where a Member State has already certified the accuracy of the facts and accounts in the final payment claim, it may still alter its assessment of the final payment claim if it considers that this contains irregularities which had not been previously detected.
2 The obligation, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC), to state the reasons for an individual decision is intended to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to enable him to determine whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested, and to enable the Community judicature to review the lawfulness of the decision. A decision reducing the amount of ESF assistance initially granted must, in view of the serious consequences for the recipient, either show clearly the grounds justifying that reduction or refer with sufficient clarity to a measure of the competent national authorities in the Member State concerned, in which the reasons for such a reduction are clearly set out.
3 As regards the time which elapses between the lodging of a final payment claim by the national authority responsible for matters concerning ESF funding and the Commission’s adoption of a decision in relation to that claim, the question whether that time-gap is reasonable must be determined in relation to the particular circumstances of each individual case. In particular, it is necessary to take account of its context, the various procedural stages followed, the complexity of the case and its importance for the various parties involved.
4 A measure is tainted by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or at least the primary purpose, of achieving an end other than that stated or of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case.
Citations:
[1999] EUECJ T-182/96
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
Administrative
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173289