Case C-92/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of G. Stilianakis against the Greek State
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, inland transport, interpretation of the law, intra-EU transport, restriction on competition, tax system

19.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/11

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Breach of the principle of Community law relating to the
concept of set-off between claims: the distinction drawn
by the Court of First Instance between ‘actual payment’
and payment by means of set-off does not exist in law,
since those two methods of payment have the same legal
and accounting consequences.

the Communities’

— Breach of the principle of the effectiveness of Community
law: the Court of First Instance was wrong in concentrat-
ing on the proper carrying out of the activities relating to
the payments made by means of set-off without dwelling
on the need to protect
financial
interests. The Court of First Instance did not explain,
moreover, why set-off is more damaging, in respect of
the carrying out of the activities at issue, than enforced
recovery. By stating that the non-payment of the sums
intended for the activities at issue jeopardised the carrying
out of those activities, the Court of First Instance distorted
the facts or failed, at least, to state the reasons for its
observations whereas, indeed, it stated that the CEMR
was not insolvent.

— Breach of the principles of sound financial management
and the sound administration of justice: the Court of First
Instance failed to take account of the main purpose of
set-off, which is economy of procedure and the saving of
costs, not only in the context of mutual
financial
obligations, but also in the context of the sound adminis-
tration of justice.

Appeal brought on 26 February 2001 by the French
Republic against the judgment delivered on 14 December
2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express
(UFEX), DHL International, Federal Express International
(France), CRIE and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by the French Republic, Chrono-
post SA and La Poste

(Case C-93/01 P)

(2001/C 150/21)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December
2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX), DHL
International, Federal Express International (France), CRIE and
the Commission of the European Communities, supported by
the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 February 2001 by the French Republic, represented by
G. de Bergues and F. Million, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Second Chamber) by
judgment of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of
G. Stilianakis against the Greek State

— order the UFEX to pay the costs incurred in the proceed-
ings before the Court of Justice and make a fresh ruling
in relation to the costs incurred in the proceedings before
the Court of First Instance.

(Case C-92/01)

(2001/C 150/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Monomeles Dioiki-
tiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Administrative Court of First
Instance, Heraklion), Second Chamber, of 31 October 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 22 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of G. Stilianakis against the
Greek State on the following question:

Are Articles 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty and Article 3(1) of
Council Regulation No 2408/92 (1)
to be interpreted as
prohibiting a Member State from imposing a differentiated
fiscal charge on domestic and intra-Community flights with
the direct result that an amount of tax is charged on intra-
Community flights double that on flights within the Member
State?

(1) OJ L 240 of 24.8.1992, p. 8.

Pleas and main arguments

— Misinterpretation of

‘normal market conditions’: The
Court of First Instance erred in holding that when the
Commission carried out an analysis of the economic
factors on the basis of which it was considered possible
to assess whether remuneration was ‘normal’, it should
have taken into account the implications for La Poste’s
costs — hence on the remuneration requested from its
subsidiary — of
its structural situation (its reserved
sector).

The approach espoused by the Court of First Instance has
no basis in reality, since a private operator with no
reserved activities would never wish to equip itself with a
network like the La Poste network, which was developed
solely to meet the needs of the reserved sector. Moreover,
no private operator desires access to the La Poste network,
despite the allegedly cheaper rates offered.