Case C-22/04: Action brought on 26 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fishing controls, fishing vessel, satellite navigation

C 85/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

9.

Is there a conflict between Community competition law
and/or the fundamental principles of Community law
(with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13
of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a
national provision which requires a consumer or a third
party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement
which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an
application to a court other than the one which has
jurisdiction ratione loci on the basis of the registered
office (sede) of the subsidiary of the insurance company
with which they entered into a contract or in the court
district in which the injured party is resident, having
regard also to the difference in legal costs which each
approach involves?

withdraw the invitation to tender (withdrawal decision
analogous to the award decision) amenable to review in
any case, since the applicant is entitled to have that
decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met,
notwithstanding the possibility, once withdrawal has
taken place, of obtaining an award of damages?

(1) OJ L 395, p. 33.

10. Does Community law require national courts to disapply
national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?

Action brought on 26 January 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-22/04)

(2004/C 85/22)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Janu-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Thomas van Rijn and Maria Kondou-Durande,
Legal Advisers in its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to ensure that fishing vessels which
fly its flag and must be equipped with devices for position
monitoring by means of satellite were in fact equipped,
according to the type of vessel, on 30 June 1998 or
1 January 2000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 3 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2847/93 (1) of 12 October 1993;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and arguments

The period for transposition of the regulation into national
law expired on 1 January 2000.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 12 January 2004
in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against Bundesimmo-
biliengesellschaft m.b.H.

(Case C-15/04)

(2004/C 85/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Austria) (Federal Procurement Office) of 12 January 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 20 January 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft m.b.H. on the following ques-
tions:

1. Are the provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with
Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
21 December 1989 (1) so unconditional and sufficiently
precise that, in the event of withdrawal of the invitation
to tender after the opening of tenders, an individual is
entitled rely on those provisions directly before the
national courts and to seek a review of the withdrawal?

2.

If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, are
Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(1)(b) of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 to be
interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged
to make a contracting authority’s decision, prior to
it will
withdrawal of

the invitation to tender,

that