Case C-18/03 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 November 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, EU aid, European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), agricultural holding

C 70/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

The Commission submits, therefore, in reliance on the detailed
legal submissions in its appeal
the
contested judgment should be annulled in the event that the
appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment in case T-
5/02 is successful.

in case T-5/02,

that

( 1) OJ C 156, 29.06.2002, p. 27.
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
30.12.1989, p. 1).

( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001
declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgemnt of that Court
of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Ver-
eniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam
Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and
Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie;
Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratie-
kantoor

(Case C-17/03)

(2003/C 70/09)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 13 November 2002, received at
the Court
Registry on 16 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en
Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and
3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en
toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit
Administratiekantoor on the following questions:

I.

a) Can Article 86(2) EC be invoked to justify continuing
to grant a company which was formerly entrusted
with the operation of services of general economic
interest and which entered into certain commitments
in connection with such operation a special right to
enable it to honour those commitments after the
particular task assigned to it has been completed?

b)

If this question is answered in the affirmative, is a rule
which provides for the preferential allocation for a
period of ten years of half to a quarter (declining
over time) of the cross-border transport capacity for
electricity to the undertaking concerned nevertheless
invalid because it

II.

a)

Is Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive (1) to be
interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of dis-
crimination contained therein is restricted to the
requirement that the system operator must not draw
any distinction in granting access to the system by
means of technical rules?

If so, is an allocation method relating to the cross-
border transport capacity of electricity to be regarded
as a technical rule within the meaning of the abov-
ementioned provision?

b)

In the event that the allocation method must be
regarded as a technical rule or in the event that
Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive is not limited
to technical rules, is a rule under which preferential
cross-border transport capacity is made available for
contracts concluded in connection with a particular
public task compatible with the prohibition of dis-
crimination contained in that article?

(1) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20).

Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and
Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 Nov-
ember 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela
Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-18/03 P)

(2003/C 70/10)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November
2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/
99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind
SL and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 17 January 2003 by the appellants, represented by
Maurizio Carretta, lawyer.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1.

2.

is not proportionate in relation to the — public
— interest served thereby;

1. As regards the substance,

affects trade to such an extent as would be
contrary to the interests of the Community?

— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of

9 March 1999

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/7

— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of

1.

4 March 1999

— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of

4 March 1999

— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of

4 March 1999

in the alternative, reduce the amount of subsidy to repay
to the Commission to a lesser amount as may be decided
in the course of proceedings;

2.

as a measure of inquiry, allow the claims submitted in the
present proceedings;

3.

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment of the Court of First Instance rejected all the
pleas in law submitted by the appellants and thus dismissed
the applications in their entirety. As regards the first plea in
law, the appellant undertakings share the view the Court of
First Instance in its reasoning from the legal point of view.

On the other hand, the appellants argue that so far as the
remaining pleas are concerned, the Court of First Instance has
not made clear the reasons for its own view, nor does it
even demonstrate that the Commission’s decisions were well
founded:
it merely repeated the arguments used in the
contested decisions.

According to the appellants, the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated by the inadequacy,
inconsistency and
contradictions of the grounds.

Is the first sentence of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97 (1)
to be understood as meaning that,
in a private-law
contractual relationship, only the final amount of the
invoice, or an individual amount detailed on the invoice,
may or must be rounded, or does a contractually agreed
unit price/tariff (in this case a price per minute) constitute
a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for within
the meaning of that provision? In determining whether a
tariff is a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for
within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97,
is it decisive whether the tariff relates to a particular
multiple (in this case six) of a unit on the basis of which
the final amount of the invoice is ascertained (in this case
a ten-second unit), or whether it is the tariff as perceived
by consumers that represents the relevant amount of the
invoice?

2.

Is Regulation 1103/97(and in particular Article 5) to be
understood as constituting an exhaustive rule whereby
sums other than monetary amounts to be paid or
accounted for (if any) may not be rounded in the manner
described in Article 5, in other words, must they either
continue to be displayed in the former national currency,
or be quoted in the exact amount produced on conver-
sion?

(1) OJ L 162 of 19.06.1997, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
eerste Aanleg, Bruges by order of that Court of 17 January
2003 in the criminal matters brought by the Public
Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alexan-
der van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong

(Case C-20/03)

(2003/C 70/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
München by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in
the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Hamburg
e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-19/03)

(2003/C 70/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht München
(Regional Court, Munich) of 17 December 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 20 January 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Ham-
burg e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG on the
following questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van eerste
Aanleg (Court of First Instance), Bruges of 17 January 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal matters brought by the
Public Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alex-
ander van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong on the following
questions:

(a)

Because the interests sought to be protected by the
legislature could be safeguarded by other less stringent
means, are Articles 30 to 37 (free movement of goods) of
the EC Treaty, as applicable on 6 September 2001,
Article 48 et seq. of that Treaty (freedom of movement
for persons), or Article 59 et seq. thereof (freedom to
provide services), infringed by Articles 2, 3, 5(3) and 13
of the Belgian law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise of
itinerant activities and the organisation of public markets,