Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 25 February 1992

1 Original language: French.

2 Council Decision on the tasks of the European Social Fund, OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.

3 Council Regulation on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of the European Social Fund, OJ1983 L 289, p. 1.

4 Commission Decision on the management of the European Social Fund, OJ 1983 L 377, p. 1.

5 Europe Sociale, 2/91, p. 87.

6 Article 1 of Decision 83/516/EEC.

7 See the Annex to Decision 83/516/EEC, statement ad Article 5(1).

8 See, for example, Article 6(2) of Decision 83/516/EEC.

9 Article 124 of the EEC Treaty.

10 Contained in Annex 1 to Decision 83/673/EEC

11 Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

12 Ibid.

13 Submitted on the form contained in Annex 2 to Decision 83/673/EEC.

14 Article 5(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

15 Ibid.

16 Except in specific cases: Article 5 of Decision 83/516/EEC.

17 Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

18 Ibid.

19 Article 6(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

20 In this case, too, the Member Sute concerned must be consulted: Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

21 Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

22 Ibid, and Article 2(2) of Decision 83/516/EEC.

23 Article 5(2) of Regulation No 2950/83.

24 Case 310/81 [1984] ECR 1341, paragraph 15, (emphasis added), judgment given under the currency of the 1977 Rules.

25 Whether this involves notification of the decision of approval or notification of the decision determining the amount of the balance remaining due from the Commission.

26 For an example, see the judgment in Case 84/85 United Kingdom v Commission [1987] ECR 3765.

27 Which enables the bodies concerned to enjoy cash flow faculties.

28 Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83.

29 Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2950/83.

30 See paragraph 24 of my Opinion in Case C-291/89 Interhotel [1991] ECR I-2283.

31 Interhotel judgment, cited above; and judgment in Case C-304/89 Oliveira [1991] ECR I-2283.

32 Annex to the application, document 9.

33 Ibid, document 8.

34 Whereas the application was for an amount of ESC 66533519 for 380 persons.

35 Annex to the application, document 11.

36 ibid, document 10.

37 Annex to the application, document 12.

38 Ibid., document 5.

39 Order of 21 November, 1990 ECR I-4265.

40 Application, p. 2.

41 Annex to the application, document 5.

42 It should be borne in mind that approval had been given for the total amount of ESC 8373341 and that infortec had already received from the Fund an advance of ESC 4186670.

43 Annex 1 to the defence.

44 Emphasis added. See also p. 17 of the defence.

45 Judgment in Case C-200/89 FUNOC v Commission [1990] ECR I-3684.

46 Paragraphs 24 and 25.

47 At the hearing the representative of the Commission confirmed that that was the Commission's interpretation of the provision.

48 See Paragraph 12 of my Opinion in the Oliveira case, cited above.

49 Judgment cited above; see also the judgment in Interhotel, cited above, paragraph 15.

50 Paragraphs 22 to 24 of the Oliveira judgment, cited above.

51 In the amount of ESC 550668844.

52 Application for assistance, p. 2, Annex I to the Commission's defence.

53 Annex I to the Commission's defence.

54 Annex 2 to the application.

55 Contrary to the assertion made by Consorgan in its application, at paragraph 4 of the introduction, document 3 annexed to the application does not establish the existence or a payment by the Fund. But that point is not contested by the Commission.

56 See payment authorization no 1933/87 by DESFA, Annex 4 to the application.

57 Annex 1 to the Commission's defence.

58 Annex 1 of the application.

59 ESC 6472608 from the European Social Fund and ESC 5295771 from the national public contribution (see letter of 30 March 1990).

60 See paragraph 14 of the judgment in Interhotel, cited above; see also paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment in Oliveira, cited above.

61 Annex I to the Commission's reply to the written question by the Court.

62 It was that sum which appeared in the final payment claim.

63 Ibid. Annex II.

64 Ibid. Annex III.

65 Ibid. Annex IV.

66 Ibid. Annex V.

67 Paragraph 17 of the judgment in Case C-200/89, cited above.

68 Judgment in Case 32/86 SISMA v Commission [1987] ECR 1670, emphasis added.

69 Judgment in Case 185/83 Interfacultair Instituut Electronenmicroscopie der Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1984] ECR 3623, paragraph 38, emphasis added.

70 Case C-213/87 [1990] ECR I-221.

71 Paragraph 28 of the judgment cited above.

72 See Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

73 Case 185/83, cited above, paragraph 39.

74 Save in special cases. See Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83.

75 I would point out in this case the extent of the reduction: the Fund's contribution is reduced by ESC 30501190, whereas it was initially approved in the amount of ESC 93552788 (see evaluation report, document 2 of the Annex to the application).

76 Annex 1 to the Commission's rejoinder. It is worth noting that the circular is carefully reasoned.

77 Reply, point 11.

78 See paragraph 55, above.

79 See paragraph 20, above.

80 Especially since the advance had been paid.

81 Fixed at ESC 62834639 in the Fund's letter of 5 September 1989, Annex I to the Commission's reply to the Court's written question.

82 See Commission's lener of 27 October 1989, Annex III to the Commission's reply to the Court's written question.

83 Ibid.

84 Emphasis added.

85 Judgment in Case 44/81 Germany v Commission [1982] ECR 1855, paragraph 16.

86 Annex I to the application, my emphasis. It should be noted in passing that Consorgan applied for no sum under Item 14.7 (see final payment claim, Annex I to the defence). Moreover, the reduction necessarily affects items other than those cited. The total of the sums appearing under those headings is in fact less than the total amount of the reduction.

87 ESC 337749326 instead of ESC 550668844; see the application for final payment, p. 1, items 5 and 6.

88 See paragraph 95, above.

89 Such as the relative size of each undertaking's share under the various headings.

90 To judge by the application for final payment, boxes 5 and 6, Annex II to the defence.

91 Document 6, annexed to the application.

92 Annex I to the Commission's reply to the written question put by the Court.

93 Ibid. Annex II.

94 Ibid. Annex III.