Case C-116/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy by judgment of that court of 14 February 2005 in Ets Dhumeaux et Cie SA — Société d'Etudes et de Commerce ‘SEC’ v ALBV SA, ALBV SA v Tragex Gel — Institut d'expertise vétérinaire ‘IEV’, ALBV SA v Cigma International SA and ALBV SA v Mr Gustin in his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, action to establish liability on the part of an administration, administrative offence, certificate of origin, export refund, health certificate, interpretation of the law, meat processing industry, veterinary inspection

C 115/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

(d) the Appellant's claim that he is individually concerned
because he participated in the procedure leading to the
adoption of
the contested measure on the basis of
Article 13 of Directive 76/768 and its participation in
the adoption of the contested measure is inadmissible:
the Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance
wrongly concluded that Article 13 refers only to indivi-
dual measures, since Directive 76/768 does not provide
for the possibility to adopt such measures.

within any other of the categories of supply of services referred
to in Article 9(2) of the directive.

(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.

3. Moreover,

the Appellant claims that

the Court of First
Instance infringed the right to complete and effective judi-
cial protection and the right to a fair hearing. The Appellant
submits that his right to complete and effective judicial
protection should have resulted in, at a minimum, the Court
of First Instance hearing the substance of the case instead of
refusing the Appellant's legal standing based on mere formal
arguments.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
commerce de Nancy by judgment of that court of 14
February 2005 in Ets Dhumeaux et Cie SA — Société
d'Etudes et de Commerce ‘SEC’ v ALBV SA, ALBV SA v
Tragex Gel — Institut d'expertise vétérinaire ‘IEV’, ALBV
SA v Cigma International SA and ALBV SA v Mr Gustin in
his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel

(1) OJ C 184, 02.08.2003, p. 50.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(France), acting in its judicial capacity, by order of that
court of 10 January 2005 in Ministre de l'Économie, des
Finances and de l'Industrie v Gillan Beach

(Case C-116/05)

(2005/C 115/26)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case C-114/05)

(2005/C 115/25)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Conseil d'Etat (France),
pean Communities by order of
acting in its judicial capacity, of 10 January 2005, received at
the Court Registry on 8 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Ministre de l'Economie, des
Finances and de l'Industrie and Gillan Beach, a company, on
the following question:

Whether an overall service provided by an organiser to exhibi-
tors at a fair or in an exhibition hall falls within the scope of
the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive
77/388 of 17 May 1977 (1), Article 9(2)(a) of that directive or

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de commerce
de Nancy (France) of 14 February 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 10 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Ets Dhumeaux et Cie SA — Société
d'Etudes et de Commerce ‘SEC’ and ALBV SA, ALBV SA and
Tragex Gel — Institut d'expertise vétérinaire ‘IEV’, ALBV SA
and Cigma International SA and ALBV SA and Mr Gustin in
his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel on the following
questions:

— Where the export of beef and veal on which refunds are
granted requires the presentation of a health certificate
formally drawn up by the competent veterinary authority
after daily inspections of the cutting plant for that meat,
must the principle of legitimate expectations be interpreted
as meaning that the recipients of that certificate (the inter-
mediary purchaser, the exporter) may legitimately expect it
to correspond with the product origin indicated, such that
any errors,
faults or negligent acts committed by those
authorities in exercising their powers must be regarded as
exceeding the ordinary risks of business borne by those
recipients and must lead the Member State in question to
assume directly the financial and other consequences
thereof, in particular vis-à-vis the EAGGF?

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/15

— Where trading in beef and veal requires the presentation of
certificates of health and origin formally drawn up by the
competent veterinary authority after daily inspections of the
production plant, do the errors, faults or negligent acts
established by a court, which are committed by those
authorities in exercising their powers and lead to incorrect
certification to the detriment of the operators and expor-
ters, constitute force majeure?

Action brought on 15 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-123/05)

(2005/C 115/28)

Action brought on 14 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case C-122/05)

(2005/C 115/27)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by U. Wölker and D. Recchia, members of the Commis-
sion's legal service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt all

laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Com-
munity and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (2) or, in
any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those
provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Article 31(1) of that directive;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by X. Lewis and A. Aresu, members of the Commission's
legal service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by adopting Article 44 of Law No 724 of 23
December 1994, amending Article 6(2) of Law No 573 of
24 December 1993 so as to permit the renewal of public
service contracts to previous contract-holders, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 11,
15 and 17 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts, and Articles 6 and 9 of
Council Directive 93/36/EEC (2) of 14 June 1993 coordi-
nating procedures for the award of public supply contracts,
and Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for complying with the directive expired on 31
December 2003.

(1) OJ L 275 of 25.10.2003, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.

The Commission has challenged Article 6(2) of Law No 537 of
1993 as amended by Article 44 of Law No 724 of 1994. In
particular that provision prohibits the tacit renewal of public
contracts for the supply of goods and services but also provides
that ‘within three months of the expiry of the contracts the
administration shall ascertain whether it is convenient and in
the public interest for those contracts to be renewed and, if so,
shall notify the contracting party of its willingness to renew the
contract.’