Case C-294/02: Action brought on 14 August 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against (1) Alcatel Microelectronics N.V., (2) A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, (3) Intracom S.A. Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, (4) Ision Sales & Services GmbH & Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH, (6) Landesbank Kiel, Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in liquidation
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), advance payment, damages, electronics, financing

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Berufungssenat I
der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Ober-
österreich mit Sitz in Linz by order of that Court of
11 July 2002 in the appeal bought by Herbert Handlbauer
GmbH

Action brought on 14 August 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against (1) Alcatel Microe-
lectronics N.V., (2) A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft
mbH, (3) Intracom S.A. Hellenic Telecommunications &
Electronic Industry, (4) Ision Sales & Services GmbH &
Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH, (6) Landesbank Kiel,
Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in liquidation

(Case C-278/02)

(2002/C 289/11)

(Case C-294/02)

(2002/C 289/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Berufungssenat I der
Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich
mit Sitz in Linz (Linz Regional Appeal Board I at the Provincial
Finance Directorate for Upper Austria, in Linz) of 11 July
2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Herbert Handlbau-
er GmbH on the following questions:

1.

2.

Is Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of
18 December 1995 on the protection of the European
Communities’ financial interests (1) directly applicable in
the Member States, in particular in the field of organis-
ations of the market (export refunds) where there are
irregularities?

a.

Is Article 3(1) of the said regulation, which lays down
a limitation period of four years for proceedings
concerning irregularities, directly applicable by the
customs authorities of the Member States?

Is the announcement of a customs inspection made to
the relevant responsible persons of an undertaking an act
relating to investigation or legal proceedings which
interrupts the limitation period of four years under
Article 3(1) of the said regulation, if the inspection takes
place under Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 (2) because of
the generally known risk or the frequency of acts
prejudicial to the financial interests of the Community in
implementing the common agricultural policy?

( 1) OJ L 312 [1995], p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 388 [1989], p. 18.

(1) Alcatel Microelectronics N.V.,

An action against
(2)
A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, (3) Intracom S.A.
Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, (4) Ision
Sales & Services GmbH & Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH,
(6) Landesbank Kiel, Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in
liquidation was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 14 August 2002 (received at the
Court of First Instance on 12 August 2002) by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Günter Wilms,
of its Legal Service, assisted by Rolf Karpenstein, lawyer, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

(1) order the defendants, as joint and several debtors, to pay
to the applicant EUR 317 214,00 plus interest at the rate
of 2 % above the rate applied by the European Monetary
Institute
sum of
EUR 125 820,00 since 8 June 1998 and on the sum of
EUR 191 394,00 since 6 May 1999;

euro transactions on the

for

(2) order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks repayment of the difference
between the advances paid by way of assistance towards a
project the ‘Electronic Commerce Fulfilment Service for the
Electronics Industry’) and the financial contribution to be
acknowledged as contractually due from the Commission. It is
claimed that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction in the matter
by virtue of an agreed jurisdiction clause (reading: ‘The Court
of First Instance of the European Communities, ... shall have
exclusive jurisdiction in any dispute between the Commission
and the Contractors concerning the validity, application and
interpretation of this contract’).