Case C-251/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, drinking water, human nutrition, public health, quality of the environment

C 184/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the Commission of the
‘TASEIS TRENDS’
European Communities against
(Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2)
Marios Kontaratos and Others

(1)

Commission. Since the defendant did not produce the evidence
needed to overturn the audit's conclusions, the Commission
considered the contracts to be terminated and sought reimbur-
sement of the sums overpaid.

(Case C-249/03)

(2003/C 184/46)

‘TASEIS TRENDS’
An action against (1)
(Transport Environ-
ment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and
Others was brought before the Court of
the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
its Legal Service, Maria Bra, of
and
K. Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

the Brussels Bar,

Justice of

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— allow the application in its entirety;

— order the defendant partnership ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ and the
defendants who are members thereof to reimburse to the
Commission the entire amount of
the wrongly made
advance payments received by the defendant partnership
from the Community in respect of the contracts at issue,
that is to say the sum of EUR 195 435, together with
contractual interest in respect of the period from the date
of mispayment,
calculated in that way
amounting on 30 September 2002 to EUR 84 489,14
and thereafter EUR 35,45 (29,17 plus 6,28) per day until
the defendant's debt has been fully discharged, or, in the
alternative, interest for late payment under Article 94 of
Commission Regulation No 3418/93 on the whole sum
of EUR 195 345, at a rate of 5,50% from 31 December
1998 (when the period laid down by the order
for
payment expired) until the defendant's debt has been fully
discharged, amounting up until 30 September 2002 to
EUR 40 315,83 and thereafter EUR 29,45 per day;

interest

the

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

‘TASEIS TRENDS’

is a civil-law partnership
The defendant
governed by Greek law, which has as its object the promotion
of research and the dissemination of information on proble-
matical
issues in relation to the environment, development,
town planning, transport and so forth. It concluded with the
Commission, within the framework of Council Decision 88/
416/EEC of 29 June 1988 on a Community programme in the
informatics and telecommunications
field of road transport
(i) Contract BATT — V
(Drive) (1),
2029 (implementation of the project ‘BATT — Behaviour and
ATT’) and (ii) Contract MIRO — V 2060 (implementation of
the project ‘Mobility impact, reactions and opinions’).

the following contracts:

The Commission pleads:

— in support of its principal claim: Article 8,2 of Annex II
to the contracts, which provides that
the Commission
may terminate the contract inter alia if, in order to obtain
the Commission, or any
the financial contribution of
other advantage under
the contract, a contractor has
made false or incomplete statements for which it may
properly be held responsible;

of

the

interest:

— in support of
the principal head of claim regarding
payment
of
Article 8,4 of Annex II to the contracts, which provides
that interest is due from the date on which the payments
in question were received, at
the rate applied by the
European Monetary Cooperation Fund (now the European
Central Bank) increased by two percentage points;

subparagraph

second

— in support of

the alternative head of claim regarding
payment of interest: Article 94 of Commission Regulation
No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed
rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (2).

(1) OJ L 206, 30.7.1988, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1.

Action brought on 11 June 2003 by the Commission of
Portuguese
the

European Communities

against

the

Republic

(Case C-251/03)

(2003/C 184/47)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June
the European Communities,
2003 by the Commission of
represented by António Caeiros and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
ensure that water intended for human consumption meets
the requirements laid down in Annex I to Council Direc-
tive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of
water intended for human consumption, the Portuguese
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7
(6) of that directive; and

Serious financial contraventions on the part of the defendant
were found following audits by the Court of Auditors and the

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

the requirements

The Portuguese authorities failed to take any measures to
intended for
ensure that, within various parameters, water
human consumption met
laid down in
Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC and, therefore, the Portuguese
Republic has failed to fulfil, within the prescribed period,
its
obligations under Article 7(6) thereof. The fact that the Portu-
guese Republic has or is about
to take steps or measures
which, according to the Portuguese authorities, have as their
main objective to reach the quality levels for water intended
for human consumption laid down by Community law does
not justify that Member State having failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions.

Appeal brought on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira SA
against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the
Third Chamber of
the
between
European Communities
the European
Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of

the Court of First Instance of
in Case T-126/01

Communities

(Case C-254/03 P)

(2003/C 184/48)

the Court of First

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by
the Third Chamber of
the
European Communities in Case T-126/01 between Eduardo
Vieira SA and Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira S.A., represented by
Ramón García-Gallardo and Mª Dolores Domínguez Pérez,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Instance of

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

3.

declare the present appeal admissible;

set aside the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the
Third Chamber of
the
in Case T-126/01 between
European Communities
Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of
the European
Communities;

the Court of First

Instance of

order the European Commission to pay the entire costs of
proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as those
incurred at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed
Community law. The appellant relies on six pleas in law:

— Infringement of the Agreement between the Community
and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea

the

so far

sector
the

legal basis of

(EC/Argentina Agreement)

as
fisheries
concerns
contested decision.
According to the Court of First Instance, the Commission
was competent to take Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and
in particular on Article 24 thereof as the legal basis for
the EC/
the decision to reduce financial aid. However,
Argentina Agreement lays down a specific legal system
for joint enterprises established within its framework, so
that provisions of general application are not applicable
where the Agreement makes no express reference thereto;
such reference is made only in relation to the submission
of projects for approval and requests and procedure for
payment.

— Infringement of

the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
concerns the role played by the Joint Committee and the
Instance
Argentinian authorities. The Court of First
required to
considers
consult either the Joint Committee or the Argentinian
authority before reducing financial aid. Thus it disregards
the institutional structure established by the Agreement.

the Commission was not

that

— Infringement of

the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
concerns application of
the procedure provided for by
Article 44 of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, repealed
from 1 January 1994 and thus inapplicable in the present
case, to the procedure for reducing financial aid. Accord-
ingly, there was no legal basis for the consultation with
the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry.

— Infringement of

the reduction of

the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
concerns application of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93
the
when assessing the amount of
financial assistance. The Commission ought
to have
applied a reduction based on that regulation but only
within the framework of the EC/Argentina Agreement and
having regard to its scale of assessment. The application
the scale of assessment established in Regulation
of
No 3699/93 entails an additional sanction on the bene-
ficiary.

— Infringement of Community law as regards force majeure.
The Court of First Instance disregards the obligation on
the Commission so far as concerns the legal classification
of certain events as force majeure.

— Infringement of

the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
concerns the need to seek Commission approval before
leaving Argentinian fishing waters. The Court of First
Instance considers that
the appellant was required to
inform the Commission of difficulties in carrying out the
project and could not
leave the Argentinian exclusive
the
economic zone without
Commission. Nevertheless, if an ‘international component’
is acknowledged to exist, authorisation by the Argentinian
authority should suffice.

approval of

the prior