Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-30/03: Commission of the European Communities v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC) (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract — Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)
Date: 2003-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), contract, law of obligations

29.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 16 October 2003

in Case C-30/03: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária
(ITEC) (1)

(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)

(2003/C 289/20)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-30/03, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito) v Instituto Tecnoló-
gico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC), a private establishment
established in Lisbon (Portugal): Application by the Com-
mission under Article 238 EC to recover EUR 26 105,97
advanced by it to the defendant in relation to performance of
Contract No PRO 036, together with default interest, the Court
(Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rappor-
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:

1. Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
to repay to the Commission of the European Communities the
sum of EUR 26 105,97, together with default interest at the
rate prescribed by Luxembourg law, calculated in accordance
with the provisions of the Grand-Ducal Regulations of 21 Janu-
ary and 22 December 2000, 21 January 2002 and 24 January
2003, until the debt is paid in full;

2. Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)

to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 24 July 2003

in Case C-297/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal):
Sicilcassa Spa v IRA Costruzioni SpA, Francesco Gaetano
Restivo Graci and Others, and between Francesco Gaet-
ano Restivo Graci and Others and IRA Costruzioni SpA,
Amministrazione straordinaria della Holding personale
Graci Gaetano, Sicilcassa SpA (1)

(State aid — Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — New aid —
Absence of prior notification — Aid incompatible with the
common market — Withdrawal of aid — Transitional
arrangements maintaining the effect of the withdrawn aid)

(2003/C 289/21)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-297/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Tribunale di Catania (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Sicilcassa Spa
and IRA Costruzioni SpA, Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci
and Others, and between Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci and
Others and IRA Costruzioni SpA, Amministrazione straordina-
ria della Holding personale Graci Gaetano, Sicilcassa SpA on the
interpretation of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, the national court having been informed
that the Court proposes to give its decision by reasoned order
pursuant to Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the persons
referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice
having been invited to submit any observations they may have
on that proposal, has made an order on 24 July 2003, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

Transitional rules such as those laid down by Article 106 of
Legislative Decree No 270/99 of 8 July 1999 introducing new
rules on the special administration of large insolvent firms, which
maintain the effects of a new State aid scheme which has not been
notified to the Commission and has been declared incompatible
with Community law, in themselves constitute a new State aid
scheme within the meaning of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.

The questions asking for the Court’s assessment of the compati-
bility with the common market of transitional rules such as
those laid down by Article 106 of Legislative Decree No 270/
99 are inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.