Luxembourg, 17/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - Greece has taken action against the Commission at the European Court of First Instance, seeking annulment for the decision of 1 September 2005 demanding reimbursement of EUR 12 781 410 in Cohesion Fund aid granted in 1996 for the construction of the new airport in Spata. This sum corresponds to a little over 5% of Community aid for the project. Greece challenges the fact that the sum was unduly paid. It calls for the decision to be annulled, as, it said, it was not adopted within the time-limit laid down and was upset by other irregularities. The Commission carried out this reduction after audits had been carried out, considering that the Cohesion Fund eligibility rules had not been complied with (see EUROPE 9020), which Greece disputes.
European jurisdiction is familiar with the international airport of Spata, Athens. In 2003, at the request of a Greek tribunal, the Court of Justice ruled that a higher airport tax for international flights compared to national flights was not applicable. In May 2005, it ruled against Greece for not having ensured that the airline, Olympic Airways, should reimburse aid considered incompatible with the common market (see EUROPE 8947). Still in 2005, the Court of First Instance rejected the request of a private citizen, Isabella Scippacercola, for having access to a cost-profit analysis, among other documents, relating to the project for the new airport. In 2004, a European official, Ioannis Tezerakis, challenged before the same European court the Commission's refusal to give access to the contract and to invoices for the construction of Spata airport. The above two persons initiated action against the Commission last summer, reproaching it for not having opened an indepth inquiry into charges levied by the Athens International Airport.
It should be noted that discontent was first expressed by the French public works company, Dumez, after it had, in 1995, attacked the procedure for awarding the contract for the construction of the airport, which, it felt, contained too many irregularities. It had also reproached the Commission for not having begun infringement proceedings against Greece. The Court of First Instance had ruled the action taken by Dumez inadmissible.