Official Journal of the European Union EN 23.8.2003 C 200/7
1. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application ofthe system of export refunds on agricultural products, asamended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of26 July 1994 imposes no limit on the length of time by which
a time-limit may be extended for the benefit of an exporter
under Article 47(4) of the regulation. It is for the competentnational authorities to set the length of extensions of time inaccordance with the particular circumstances of the case, takingparticular account of the degree of diligence with which the
exporter seeking the extension of time has acted, the nature of
the difficulties confronting the exporter and the amount of timewhich it will reasonably take to overcome those difficulties.
2. Exporters have no right to apply directly to national courts for
an extension of time of a specific duration but do have a legal
right of recourse against decisions taken by competent national
authorities under Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87, asamended by Regulation No 1829/94. The detailed rules andparameters of any such procedure shall be governed by thenational law of the Member States, in accordance with theprinciples of effectiveness and equivalence as defined in Commu-
nity law.
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the SozialgerichtStuttgart by order of that Court of 19 March 2003 in the
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbHagainst Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the
Bundesversicherungsamt
(Case C-193/03)
(2003/C 200/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Stuttgart(Social Court, Stuttgart) of 19 March 2003, received at theCourt Registry on 9 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in thecase of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesversi-
cherungsamt on the following question:
Whether Article 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (
1)
precludes a practice, in implementation of Paragraph 13(3)SGB V, of flat-rate reimbursement by an insurer of costs formedical treatment in another Community country, on themodel of similar provisions on small amounts.
(1) OJ L 74 of 27.3.1972, p. 1.Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Ireland against the
Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-199/03)
(2003/C 200/13)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 13 May 2003 by Ireland, represented by
D. J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC andP. McGarry, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-bourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:1. declare the action admissible;
2. annul Commission Decision C(2003)99 reducing assis-
tance granted from the European Social Fund underCommission Decisions C(94)3226 of 29 November 1994
(operational programme for human resources develop-
ment) in the framework of the project 940002IR1;C(94)1972 of 29 July 1994 (operational programme fortourism), in the framework of the project 940001IR1;C(94)2613 of 15 November 1994 (operational programme
for industrial development), in the framework of the
project 940004IR1, approving operational programmesunder objective 1 in Ireland, in whole or in part, or inrespect of such periods or amounts as the Court shoulddetermine;
3. order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
1. The Applicant submits that it is apparent from the
contested decision that the Commission manifestly failedto properly consider the evidence furnished by Ireland
which unambiguously demonstrated that in fact there was
no overpayment or overfinancing in relation to ESFeligible projects. Because of a mistaken characterisationof the exercise carried out by Ireland to demonstrate thatno such claim of overpayment or overfinancing occurred,and because of its mistaken belief that the evidence
adduced by Ireland somehow would have an impact on
the financial tables, the Commission failed to properlyconsider the evidence and drew incorrect conclusionsfrom certain elements.