Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2001 in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, appeal, assistant, professional qualifications, regulations for civil servants

C 84/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

a) A benefit such as the advance on maintenance payments
provided for by the O¨ sterreichische Bundesgesetz über die
Gewährung von Vorschüssen auf den Unterhalt von Kindern
(Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz) (Austrian Federal Law on the Grant
of Advances for the Maintenance of Children), adopted in
1985, is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
1996.

b) A person, one or other of whose parents is an employed person
or is out of work, comes within the scope ratione personae of
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, as a member of the
family of a worker within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
Regulation No 1408/71, read in the light of Article 1(f)(i)
thereof.

c) Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be
construed as meaning that, where a minor child resides with the
parent who has custody in a Member State other than the
Member State providing the benefit, and where the other parent,
who is under an obligation to pay maintenance, works or is
unemployed in the Member State providing the benefit, that
child is entitled to receive a family benefit such as the advance
on maintenance payments provided for by the Unterhaltsvor-
schussgesetz.

(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 6 December 2001

in Case C-269/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Hamburg): Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG,
Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH &
Co. KG v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin — Simplified registration
procedure — Protection of the designation ‘Spreewälder
Gurken’)

(2002/C 84/10)

(Language of the case: German)

for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG, Rich.
Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG
and Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG — on the validity
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 of 18 March
1999 supplementing
to Regulation (EC)
the Annex
No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 74,
p. 8) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it has ruled:

Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any matter of
such a nature as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 590/1999 of 18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to
Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
registers the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 November 2001

in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure
to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of
Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities)

(2002/C 84/11)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-269/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg (Germany)

In Case C-270/99 P: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,
avocat, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
4 May 1999 in Case T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR
I-A-77 and II-401, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
so far as the Court of First Instance dismissed Z’s action against

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/7

the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parlia-
ment of 28 October 1996 imposing on him the disciplinary
measure of downgrading, the other party to the proceedings
being: European Parliament (Agent: H. Krück) — the Court,
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colner-
ic, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
27 November 2001, in which it:

concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 27 November 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Z to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 November 2001

in Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa
Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale di Costruzioni v
ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Società Italiana per
Condotte d’Acqua SpA (C-285/99), and between Impresa
Ing. Mantovani SpA and ANAS — Ente nazionale per
intervener:
le strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli

(C-286/99),

Coopsette Soc. coop. arl (C-286/99) (1)

(Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Award
of contracts — Abnormally low tenders — Detailed rules for
explanation and rejection applied in a Member State —
Obligations of the awarding authority under Community
law)

(2002/C 84/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99: reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Impresa Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale
di Costruzioni v ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Società
Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua SpA (C-285/99), and between
Impresa Ing. Mantovani SpA and ANAS — Ente nazionale per
le strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli (C-286/99), intervener: Coopsette
Soc. coop. arl (C-286/99) — on the interpretation of Article
30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993

Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public
works contracts must be interpreted as follows:

— it precludes a Member State’s legislation and administrative
practice which allow the contracting authority to reject tenders
offering a greater discount than the anomaly threshold as
abnormally low, taking into account only those explanations of
the prices proposed, covering at least 75 % of the basic contract
value mentioned in the contract notice, which tenderers were
required to attach to their tender, without giving the tenderers
the opportunity to argue their point of view, after the opening
of the envelopes, on those elements of the prices proposed which
gave rise to suspicions;

— it also precludes a Member State’s legislation and administrative
practice which require the contracting authority to take into
consideration, for the purposes of examining abnormally low
tenders, only explanations based on the economy of
the
construction method, technical solutions chosen, or exceptionally
favourable conditions available to the tenderer, but not expla-
nations relating to all those elements for which minimum values
are laid down by law, regulation or administrative provision or
can be ascertained from official data;

— however, provided all the requirements it imposes are otherwise
complied with and the aims pursued by Directive 93/37 are
not defeated, it does not in principle preclude a Member State’s
legislation and administrative practice which, in the matter of
identifying and examining abnormally low tenders, first, require
all tenderers, under threat of exclusion from participation in the
contract, to accompany their tender with explanations of the
prices proposed, covering at least 75 % of the basic value of
that contract, and, second, apply a method of calculating the
anomaly threshold based on the average of all the tenders
received for the tender procedure in question, so that tenderers
are not in a position to know that threshold at the time they
lodge their file; the result produced by applying that calculation
method must, however, be capable of being reconsidered by the
contracting authority.

(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.