Case C-247/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 22 June 2002 in the case of Sintesi S.p.A. against Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener: Ingg. Provera e Carrassi S.p.A.
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free competition, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, public contract

C 202/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Seccio´ n: Ter-
cera by order of that Court of 16 May 2002 in the
appeal brought by Asociacio´ n Profesional de Empresas de
Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia and Asocia-
cio´ n Nacional de Empresas de Externalizacio´ n y Gestio´ n
de Envı´os y Pequen˜ a Paqueterı´a

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas

(Case C-246/02)

(2002/C 202/20)

(Case C-240/02)

(2002/C 202/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala
de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Seccio´ n: Tercera (Supreme
Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Third Section) of
16 May 2002, received at the Court Registry on 1st July 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Asociacio´ n
Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Corres-
pondencia (Trade Association of Mail Delivery and Handling
Companies) and Asociacio´ n Nacional de Empresas de Exter-
nalizacio´ n y Gestio´ n de Envı´os y Pequen˜ a Paqueterı´a (National
Association of Companies dedicated to the Externalisation and
Handling of Letters and Small Packages) on the following
questions:

Does the interpretation of Recital 21 to Directive 97/67/EC (1)
permit the exclusion from ‘self-provision’ of postal services
provided by the sender (or another person acting exclusively
on his behalf), if that person is not also the receiver, if the
services are provided in the course of his commercial activity,
or carried out using the mailbag system or other similar
methods, or if self-provision disrupts the services reserved to
the universal service provider?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 8 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas on the
following questions:

1.

Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
the Community customs territory must refer expressly
to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
compartments?

2.

If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:

Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
meaning that such notification must also be made by the
driver of a lorry who was not aware and should not have
been aware of the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione
staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 22 June 2002
in the case of Sintesi S.p.A. against Autorità per la
Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener: Ingg. Provera e
Carrassi S.p.A.

May money order services be included amongst those reserved
to the universal postal service provider?

(Case C-247/02)

(2002/C 202/21)

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
the internal market of Community postal services and the
improvement of quality of service. (OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione staccata di Brescia
(Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, Brescia Chamber)
of 22 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 8 July
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sintesi S.p.A.
against Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener:
Ingg. Provera e Carrassi S.p.A. on the following questions:

24.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 202/15

‘Does Article 30(1) of Directive 93/37 of 14 June 1993 (1), in
so far as it allows individual contracting authorities to choose
either the lowest price or the most economically advantageous
offer as the criterion for the award of a contract, constitute
a logically consistent application of the principle of free
competition which is already enshrined in Article 85 of the
Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and requires that all tenders
submitted as part of a procedure for the award of a contract
announced within the single market be assessed in such a way
as not to prevent, restrict or distort comparison between
them?’

‘Does Article 30 of Directive 93/37 of 14 June 1993, as a
strictly logical consequence, preclude Article 21 of Law No 109
of 11 February 1994 from excluding, for the award of public
works contracts under open and restricted procedures, the
choice by the contracting authority of the criterion of the most
economically advantageous tender, and prescribing, as a
general rule, that of the lowest price only?’

(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.

— by forwarding incomplete information as to the quantity
of sludge used annually in agriculture as dry matter
(information in that regard is completely missing for
Abruzzo and Campania and has been incorrectly forward-
ed, that is to say, the information forwarded did not relate
to dry matter, in respect of Tuscany and Sicily),

— by failing to make proper provision so that the registers
in which are entered the composition and characteristics
of the sludge, as required by Annex II A to Directive 86/
278/EEC (1), are properly updated, at least as regards
Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Abruzzo, Campa-
nia, Valle d’Aosta, Sicily and the Marche, and

— by failing to make proper provision so that the registers
in which are entered the quantities of sludge produced
(with regard to the whole of Italy) and the sludge used in
agriculture (as regards Abruzzo, Campania, Tuscany and
Sicily) are properly updated,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 17 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC, as amended
by Article 5 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC (2), and of
Article 10(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 86/278/EEC;

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Action brought on 8 July 2002 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Italian Republic

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-248/02)

(2002/C 202/22)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 July 2002
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Hans Stovlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Declare that:

— by forwarding incomplete information on the average
values for concentrations (mg/kg dry matter) on an
annual basis of heavy metal (cadmium, copper, nickel,
lead, zinc, mercury and chromium) and of the elements
nitrogen and phosphorus contained in sewage sludge
(information in that regard is completely missing for
Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Abruzzo, Campa-
nia, Valle d’Aosta and Sicily and are inadequate in respect
of the Marche),

— by failing to forward any information as to quantity

(t/year) of sewage sludge produced as dry matter,

According to Article 17 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC, as
amended by Article 5 of, together with Annex VI(g) to,
Council Directive 91/692/EEC, which seeks to standardise and
rationalises reports on the implementation of those directives
concerning the environment, the Member States are to provide
information every three years on the application of Directive
86/278/EEC.

Italy has forwarded inadequate and incomplete information
on the quantity of sewage sludge used in agriculture in 1995 to
1997 and on the composition and the characteristics of the
sludge as required by Annex II A to the directive.

Furthermore, the Italian authorities have made no provision to
keep up to date the registers in which are entered the
composition and the characteristics of the sludge, as required
by Annex II A to the directive, nor have they made provision
to keep up to date the registers in which are entered the
quantities of sludge produced and used in agriculture, contrary
to Article 10(1)(b) of the directive.

(1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.
(2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48.