Case C-30/03: Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), contract, law of obligations

C 70/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

than life assurance (1), as supplemented and amended by
Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC (2) and Third Council
Directive 92/49/EEC (3), and Articles 17 and 18 of First Council
Directive 79/267/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
pursuit of the business of direct life assurance (4), as amended
and supplemented by Second Council Directive 90/619/EEC (5)
and Third Council Directive 92/96/EEC (6), may the national
legislature provide that, where an insurance company is the
subject of insolvency proceedings, is put into liquidation or is
otherwise in a state of insolvency, claims arising from an
employment relationship with it are satisfied from the assets
which are included in its technical provisions in preference to
claims of persons entitled to an insurance payment and of
successors to all or certain of their rights?

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 7 of the General Conditions of the Contract , the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities and, on
appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Communities have
jurisdiction in any action concerning the validity, application
and interpretation of the contract.

Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-
mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its
obligations under the contract.

( 1) OJ L 228 of 16.08.1973, p. 3.
( 2) OJ L 172 of 04.07.1988, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 228 of 11.08.1992, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 63 of 13.03.1979, p. 1.
( 5) OJ L 330 of 29.11.1990, p. 50.
( 6) OJ L 360 of 09.12.1992, p. 1.

Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
ITEC-Instituto
of

the European Communities against

Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária

(Case C-29/03)

(2003/C 70/19)

An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa
Comunitária was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 27 January 2003 (previously
brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 January 2003)
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
ITEC-Instituto
of the European Communities against

Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária

(Case C-30/03)

(2003/C 70/20)

An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa
Comunitária was brought before the Court of
Justice of
the European Communities on 27 January 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a)

order the defendant to pay EUR 29 538,01, consisting of
EUR 26 105,97 as a capital amount and EUR 3 432,04
by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
5,25 %;

(b) order payment of EUR 3,75 per diem, by way of interest
at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full
payment is made;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(c)

order the defendant to pay the costs.

(a)

order the defendant to pay EUR 69 089,84 consisting of
EUR 62 236,65 as a capital amount and EUR 6 853,19
by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
6,28 %;

(b) order payment of EUR 10,71 per diem, by way of interest
at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full
payment is made;

(c)

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 12(2) of the contract, the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities and, on appeal, the Court of
Justice of the European Communities have jurisdiction in any
action concerning the validity, application and interpretation
of the contract.

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/13

Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-
mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its
obligations under the contract.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat,
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of
27 December 2002 in the case of La Société Anonyme
Fabricom against l’Etat Belge

(Case C-34/03)

(2003/C 70/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat,
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 December 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 29 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La
Société Anonyme Fabricom against l’Etat Belge (the Belgian
State) on the following questions:

3.

ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
which had supplied gratuitous services?

Can Council Directive 89/665/EEC (5) of 21 December
1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of
review procedures to the award of public supply and
public works contracts, and in particular Articles 2(1)(a)
and 5 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a con-
tracting authority may exclude, up to the end of the
process of evaluation of the tenders, from participation in
the procedure or submission of a tender, an undertaking
connected to any person who has been responsible for
research, testing, study or development in respect of the
works, supplies or services, although when questioned in
that regard by the contracting authority that undertaking
declares that it has gained therefrom no unfair advantage
of a nature such as to distort the normal conditions of
competition?

(1) OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 54.
(4) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.

the European Parliament and of

1. Do Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
service contracts (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,
Council Directive 93/36/EC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2),
and in particular Article 5(7) thereof, Council Directive
93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
of procedures for the award of public works contracts (3),
in particular Article 6(6) thereof, and Directive 97/52/EC
of
the Council of
13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/
36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning procedures for the
award of public service contracts, public supply contracts
and public works contracts (4), in particular Articles 2(1(b)
and 3(1)(b) thereof, in conjunction with the principle of
trade and industry and
proportionality,
respect for the law of property guaranteed in particular
by the protocol of 20 March 1992 to the Convention
for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an
application to participate in or a tender for a public
contract for works, supplies or services by any person
who has been responsible for research, testing, study or
development in respect of those works, supplies or
services where that person has not been given an
opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the
case, the experience he has acquired could not distort
competition?

freedom of

2. Would the answer to the preceding question be different if
the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction
with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-

Action brought on 31 January 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-35/03)

(2003/C 70/22)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by N. Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

a)

find that Ireland has failed in its obligations under the EC
Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concern-
ing the framework agreement on fixed-term work con-
cluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1), or by failing to
ensure that management and labour have introduced the
necessary measures by agreement, and/or by failing to
inform the Commission thereof;

b)

condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.