Joined Cases C-199/01 P and C-200/01 P

IPK-München GmbH

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeals – Commission decision refusing to pay the balance of financial aid)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Appeals – Admissibility – Party not unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49)

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para. (c))

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118)

1. A party which is neither partially nor wholly unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance is not entitled to appeal against the judgment under appeal before the Court of Justice, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.

(see para. 42)

2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1), first paragraph, (c), of the Rules of Procedure that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. Where an appeal merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court, it fails to satisfy the requirements regarding the statement of grounds under those provisions.

However, provided that the applicant challenges the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in an appeal. If an applicant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the Court of First Instance, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose.

An appeal which seeks specifically to contest the assessment by the Court of First Instance of several points of law which were referred to at first instance and which contains specific indications of the aspects of the judgment under appeal criticised and the pleas in law and the arguments on which it is based is, therefore, admissible.

(see paras 48-51)

3. Under Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Article 42(2) of those rules, which prohibits generally the introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the procedure, applies to the procedure before the Court of Justice on appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court’s jurisdiction is thus confined to review of the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the pleas argued before it.

(see para. 52)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 29 April 2004 (1)

(Appeals – Commission decision refusing to pay the balance of financial aid)

In Joined Cases C-199/01 P and C-200/01 P,

appellants,

APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: J. Mischo,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 July 2003,

gives the following

‘1. The project is nowhere near complete. Indeed the original proposal provided for a pilot phase as the fifth stage of the project. Stages six and seven respectively were to be System Evaluation and System Expansion (to the 12 Member States) and it is clear from the timetable set out on page 17 of the proposal that these were to be completed as part of the project to be co-financed by the Commission.

2. The pilot questionnaire was manifestly over-detailed for the project in question having regard, in particular, to the resources available and the nature of the project. It should have been based on a more realistic appraisal of the principal information needed by those dealing with questions of tourism and the environment ... .

3. The linking together of a number of databases to establish a distributive database system has not been achieved at 31 October 1993.

4. The type and quality of data from the test regions is most disappointing, particularly as there were only 4 Member States with 3 regions in each. A great deal of such data as there is in the system is either of marginal interest or irrelevant for questions relating to the environmental aspects of tourism, particularly at the regional level.

5. These reasons, and others which are also apparent, sufficiently demonstrate that the project has been poorly managed and coordinated by IPK and has not been implemented in a manner which corresponds with its obligations.’

‘... [IPK] cannot claim that the Commission caused the delay in the completion of the project. [IPK] waited until March 1993 before starting discussions with its partners concerning the distribution of tasks with a view to completing the project, even though it was responsible for coordination of the project. Thus, [IPK] allowed one-half of the time envisaged for completing the project to elapse before it was reasonably able to commence proper work. Even though [IPK] has provided some evidence that one or more officials of the Commission did interfere in the project between November 1992 and February 1993, it has not established at all that this interference prevented it from engaging in proper cooperation with its partners before March 1993.’

‘The Court may at any time of its own motion consider whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with a case or declare, after hearing the parties, that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it; it shall give its decision in accordance with Article 91(3) and (4) of these Rules.’

‘An appeal may be brought before the Court of Justice, within two months of the notification of the judgment under appeal, against final decisions of the Court of First Instance and decisions of that Court disposing of the substantive issues in part only or disposing of a procedural issue concerning lack of competence or inadmissibility.

Such an appeal may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions. …’

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby

Skouris

Cunha Rodrigues

Puissochet

Schintgen

Macken

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 April 2004.

R. Grass

V. Skouris

Registrar

President of the Sixth Chamber