Case C-174/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna by order of that Court of 15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003 in the case of Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Operators s.r.l.
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, free competition, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, monopoly, transport company

C 213/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

2)

If so: if the State waives its claim to the portion of the
fees due to it in respect of that legal transaction, thereby
ceasing to enforce the legal provision requiring a portion
of the fees to be remitted to the State, do the fees cease to
constitute a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335?

Appeal brought on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux NV
against the judgment delivered on 25 February 2003 by
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-183/
00 Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the European Union

(Case C-186/03 P)

(2003/C 213/11)

An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux
NV, represented by A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against the judgment
delivered on 25 February 2003 by the Court of First Instance
in Case T-183/00 Strabag Benelux NV v
(Fifth Chamber)
Council of the European Union.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
inasmuch as it dismissed the applications for annulment
and compensation on the ground that
they were
unfounded;

— uphold the forms of order sought by STRABAG in respect

of those applications and accordingly:

— annul the decision of 12 April 2000 by which the
Council awarded to the DE WAELE company the
refitting and general maintenance work contract
which was the subject of
invitation to tender
No 107865 published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities S 146 of 30 July 1999, and
by which the Council implicitly rejected the tender
submitted by STRABAG;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay to
STRABAG, subject
to any increase, the sum of
BEF 153 421 286 or EUR 3 803 214 together with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 % as from 12 April
2000;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo per la Sardegna by order of that Court of
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003 in the case of
Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Oper-
ators s.r.l.

(Case C-174/03)

(2003/C 213/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo per la Sardegna (The Administrative Court for Sardinia) of
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Operators
s.r.l. on the following questions:

(a) whether, in accordance with the recitals in the preamble
to Directive 93/38 (1), a company in the maritime trans-
port sector, which in some cases operates under a de
facto monopoly and in others in circumstances of free
competition and which benefits from State aid is to be
regarded as always subject to the Directive 93/98,

and, in the event that such a company is subject to the
rules on public notice,

Pleas in law and main arguments

(b) whether

the ‘technical specifications’ mentioned in
Article 18 of Directive 93/38 (transposed by Article 19
of Legislative Decree No 158/95) must be established
prior to the procedure for selecting a contractor and
whether they are subject to any publicity requirements.

( 1) Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 199 of
09.08.1993, p. 84).

In support of its application for annulment, the appellant puts
forward four pleas in law.

The first plea is divided into two limbs. The appellant first
criticises the Court of First Instance for failing properly to
construe the concepts of ‘contract’ and ‘decision’ in so far as it
took the view that the contract which the Council concluded
with the successful tenderer constituted the decision to award
the contract. Second, the appellant claims that the Court of
First Instance breached Article 8(3) of Directive 93/37/EEC
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts in so far as the Court took the view
that the written report required under that provision could
consist of three documents, that is to say, the report to the