Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 17 December 1992

1 Originai language: French.

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

3 Regulation on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ 1983 L 289, p.l).

4 Decision on the management of the European Social Fund (OJ 1983 L377, p.1).

5 Cases C-157/90 Infortec v Commission [1992] ECR I-3525, C-181/90 Consorgan v Commission [1992] ECR I-3557 and C-189/90 Cipeke v Commission [1992] ECR I-3573. See, in particular, paragraphs 3 to 21 of my Opinion.

6 First paragraph of Article 124 of the Treaty.

7 Decision 83/516/EEC, Article 1(2).

8 Ibid., Article 3(1) and (2).

9 Regulation No 2950/83, Article 5(1) and (2).

10 Ibid., Article 5(4).

11 Ibid., Article 7.

12 Ibid., Article 6(1).

13 Ibid., Article 6(2).

14 Annex 2 to the application.

15 Annex 3.

16 Annex 7.

17 Annex 8.

18 Annex 9.

19 Annex 1.2.

20 Annexes 1.1 and 1.2.

21 Annex 12.

22 Annex 13.

23 Letters from the Fund giving notice of decisions of that sort are generally drafted in such terms. See paragraph 43 of my Opinion of 25 February 1992 in Cases C-157/90 Infortec, C-181/90 Consorgan and C-189/90 Cipeke, cited above.

24 See the judgment in Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, paragraphs 8 and 9.

25 EISS v Commission [1984] ECR 1341, given under the 1977 rules.

26 Paragraph 15.

27 Fund assistance may not, save in exceptional cases, exceed the amount of the financial contribution of the Member Sute concerned (Article 5 of Decision 83/516/EEC).

28 See Article 2(2) of Decision 83/516/EEC; see also the judgment in Case C-291/89 Interhotel v Commission [1991] ECR I-2257, paragraph 16.

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

30 See paragraph 13 of my Opinion in the Infortec, Consorgan and Cipeke cases, cited above.

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

32 See paragraphs 81 and 82 of my Opinion in the Infortec, Consorgan and Cipeke cases.

33 interhotel-, cited above, paragraph 17. Emphasis added.

34 See, for example, the request for information dated 20 November 1987 (Annex 3 to the Commission's defence) which does not relate to the reduction of assistance.

35 Case 200/89 Funoc v Commission [1990] ECR I-3669, paragraph 6 of the Opinion.

36 Emphasis added.

37 Approval was granted for BFR 27381000. The balance claimed was BFR 14448667, the corrected balance was BFR 1833588. In view of the advance already paid, BFR 6380712 had to be repaid to the Commission (see the Commission's letter of 6 November 1991 —Annex 1.2 to the application).

38 Annex II to the defence.

39 Annex 13 to the application.

40 The Belgian Government did not reply to a question from the Court as to whether it had been consulted in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83.

41 Interhotel, cited above, paragraph 14.

42 The applications are listed on p. 2 of the application.

43 Annex to the defence, Doc. 7.6.

44 Ibid., Doc. 7.7.

45 Pp. 104 and 25 of the annex to the application.

46 P. 20 of the annex to the application.

47 Application for assistance, annex to the application, p. 29.

48 Decision of approval, Doc. 1.1 appended to the defence.

49 Annex to the application, p. 24.

50 P. 8.

51 See application, p. 7.

52 See, for example, Annex 1 to the Commission's rejoinder.

53 Furthermore, the balance drawn up on 30 October 1989 (Doc. 7,7 appended to the defence) in no way establishes that the Member State had been consulted.

54 Doc. 7.1 appended to the defence.

55 Ibid., Docs 3.9 and 7.2.

56 See the Commission's letter of 12 January 1987 and the Belgian Ministry's letter of 11 March 1987 appended to the rejoinder (see also Annexes 3.6 and 3.7 to the defence).

57 Doc. 2.1 appended to the defence.

58 Letter of 25 September 1988, Doc. 2.2 appended to the defence.

59 Doc. 2.4 appended to the defence and p. 111 of the annex to the application.

60 Project memorandum dated 6 November 1989, Doc. 2.5 appended to the defence.

61 Pp.22 and 115 of the annex to the application. Reasons given: Replies received are insufficient. Further information requested on 23 September 1988.

62 P. 110 of the annex to the application.

63 Annex to the application, p. 53.

64 Doc. 5 appended to the defence.

65 Annex 3 to the reply.

66 Application, p. 2, and annex to the application, p. 25.

67 In its letter of 3 June 1988 (Doc. 7.2 appended to the defence) the Fund does not take a view on the project: at that date, the payment claim had not yet been received.

68 Annex to the application, p. 72.

69 Doc. 7 appended to the defence.

70 See Annex 4 to the reply.

71 Application, p. 8, Doc. 6 appended to the defence and Annex 2 to the Commission's reply to the Court's questions.

72 Annex to the application, p. 25.

73 In its letter of 30 June 1988 (Document 7.2 appended to the defence) the Fund does not take a view on the project at that date, the payment claim had not yet been received.

74 Paragraph 18 of the judgment in Cipeke, cited above.

75 Annex to the application, p. 43, and Doc. 3.1 appended to the defence.

76 See Doc. 3.4 appended to the defence.

77 See Doc. 3.11 appended to the defence.

78 P. 21 of the annex to the application.

79 See footnote 69 above.

80 See the project memorandum of 17 September 1991, Doc. 3.11 appended to the defence.