Case C-357/04 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), admissibility, balance of payments assistance, business start-up, joint venture, limitation of legal proceedings

C 284/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.11.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

(Fourth Chamber)

of 30 September 2004

of 30 September 2004

in Case C-496/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

in Case C-481/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/59/EC — Failure to transpose)

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives
2001/12/EC and 2001/13/EC — The Community's railways
— Development — Fair, uniform and non-discriminatory
access to the infrastructure — Licensing of railway undertak-
ings — Common scheme — Failure to transpose within the
period prescribed)

(2004/C 284/11)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-481/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: W. Wils) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents: S.
Schreiner and M. Thill) — action under Article 226 EC for
failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2003 —
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and U. Lõhmus (Rappor-
teur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
trar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2004, the operative
part of which is as follows:

1. By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
sions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/12/EC of
the
European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001
amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of
the Community's railways and with Directive 2001/13/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001
amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway
undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under those directives;

2. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.

(2004/C 284/12)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-496/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C.-F. Durand and F. Simonetti) v French Republic
(Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) — action under Article
226 EC for
failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 24
November 2003 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric
and E.
Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September
2004, in which it:

Juhász (Rapporteur),

Judges; F.G.

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission
Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical
progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
sions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of
dangerous substances, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi
against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi
and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-357/04 P)

(2004/C 284/13)

An appeal against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi, represented by Salvatore
Amato.

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/7

The appellant claims that the Court should:

uphold the appeal and annul the order of the Court of First
Instance.

(2) If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is it suffi-
cient, in order to satisfy the requirements of the abovemen-
tioned provision of Directive 93/37/EEC, for the document
to mention the specific discount offered by the tenderer for
one or more groups of prices adjudged by the contracting
authority to be problematic or must the latter also indicate
the reasons why it regards such discount as problematic by
providing a reasoned appraisal concerning the maximum
cost for carrying out the relevant works?

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant submits that, contrary to the decision of the
Court of First Instance, his action brought on 18 December
2002 was not out of time.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the
case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environ-
ment, Planning and Public Works supported by the inter-
‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron
veners

(1)
Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’

(Case C-363/04)

(2004/C 284/14)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the
case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environ-
ment, Planning and Public Works supported by the inter-
vener ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’
(STEAT)

(Case C-364/04)

(2004/C 284/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, 4th Section, Greece) of 30 July 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry
of Culture and against the Ministry of the Environment, Plan-
ning and Public Works and against
(1)
‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and
(2) ‘Enklidis ATE’ on the following questions:

the interveners

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, 4th Section, Greece) of 30 July 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry
of the Environment, Planning and Public Works and against the
intervener ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’
(STEAT) on the following questions:

(1) Must Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14
June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
54) be interpreted as meaning that,
in the case of a
tendering procedure such as that described in the grounds
hereof (offers not accompanied by a justificatory report,
indicating the specific discount percentages applied to each
group of prices and verification as to whether discounts are
at a normal level), the contracting authority is required to
give a specific content to the document in which it requests
a bidder to provide explanations concerning an offer which
has been adjudged abnormally low in regard to a threshold
determined by application of a mathematical method
having characteristics analogous to those of the mathema-
tical method described in the grounds of this order?

(1) Must Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14
June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
54) be interpreted as meaning that,
in the case of a
tendering procedure such as that described in the grounds
hereof (offers not accompanied by a justificatory report,
indicating the specific discount percentages applied to each
group of prices and verification as to whether discounts are
at a normal level), the contracting authority is required to
give a specific content to the document in which it requests
a bidder to provide explanations concerning an offer which
has been adjudged abnormally low in regard to a threshold
determined by application of a mathematical method
having characteristics analogous to those of the mathema-
tical method described in the grounds of this order?