Case C-158/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on  23 March 2006  — Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU initiative, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, Netherlands, eligibility criteria, eligible region, interpretation of the law, national law, operational programme

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Campina GmbH & G.
emzett GmbH

formerly TUFFI Campina

Defendant: Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Question referred

Does the system of penalties laid down in the second sub-
paragraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
536/93 of 9 March 1993 (1) as amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (2), contravene the
principle of proportionality in cases where the time-limit is
exceeded only marginally and, moreover, without appreciable
effect?

2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, is
the rule established by Art. 30 (4) of Directive 93/37/EEC or
the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1) and (2) of Directive
2004/18/EC (in cases where that is the relevant provision),
according to which, if tenders appear to be abnormally low
in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall,
before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details
of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers
relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking
account of the explanations received, while not presenting
the characteristics of a fundamental principle of Community
law, nevertheless an implied consequence of or a principle
deriving from the principle of competition, considered in
conjunction with the principles of administrative transpar-
ency and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and
is it therefore, as such, directly binding, taking precedence
over possibly incompatible national provisions adopted by
the Member States to regulate public works contracts to
which Community law is not directly applicable?

(1) OJ 1993 L 57, p.22.
(2) OJ 1998 L 142, p. 22.

(1) OJ L 199, p. 54.
(2) OJ L 134, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato, Quinta Sezione lodged on 20 March 2006 —
Santorso Soc. coop. arl v Comune di Torino

(Case C-148/06)

(2006/C 154/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on 23 March 2006
— Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Econo-
mische Zaken

(Case C-158/06)

(2006/C 154/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Santorso Soc. coop. arl

Defendant: Comune di Torino and Others

Question(s) referred

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stichting ROM-projecten

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

1. Does the rule laid down in Article 30(4) of Directive
93/37/EEC (1) or the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1)
and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) (in cases where that is
the relevant provision), that, where tenders appear to be
abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting
authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request,
in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender
which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent
elements taking account of the explanations received, consti-
tute a fundamental principle of Community law?

Questions referred

1. Is Article 6 of the Commission Decision of 16 October
1995 concerning a
contribution from the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European
Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme within the
framework of the SME Community initiative for the benefit
of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 in the Netherlands
(C(95) 1753) unconditional and sufficiently clear and
precise to be directly applicable in the national legal order?

C 154/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Must Article 249 EC be interpreted as meaning that Article
6 of that decision has a direct effect so as to require an indi-
vidual, as a final beneficiary,
to enter into the legally
binding commitments referred to in that respect and to
specifically allocate the requisite finance no later than 31
December 1999?

3. If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:

Does Article 38(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provi-
sions on the Structural Funds, viewed in the light of the
principles of Community law,
leave the Member States
scope to refrain from recovery on account of an infringe-
ment of
subsidy beneficiary
concerned was unaware of that provision and is not at fault
for its lack of knowledge of that provision?

a provision where

the

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
considering that the contested letters of the Commission did
not contain a decision amenable to an action under Article 230
EC.

In Finland's view,
the Commission
the contested letters of
contain a decision amenable to an action under Article 230 EC.

By the contested decision the Commission in fact denied
Finland the opportunity to make a conditional payment within
the meaning of case-law of the Court of Justice.

The contested decision thus has binding legal effects for
Finland which affect Finland's interests and clearly change
Finland's legal position, as required by the case-law concerning
the application of Article 230 EC. In addition, the contested
decision caused a loss of rights for Finland and is thus mani-
festly adverse to Finland.

(1) OJ L 161, 21.06.2001, p.1.

Appeal brought on 27 March 2006 by the Republic of
Finland against the order made on 9 January 2006 in Case
T-177/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-163/06 P)

(2006/C 154/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 27 March 2006
— Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

(Case C-164/06)

(2006/C 154/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Finland (Agent: E. Bygglin)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nissan Italia Srl

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

Form of order sought

Question referred

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 9 January 2006 in Case T-177/
05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Commu-
nities and declare Finland's action under Article 230 EC
admissible and remit the main action to the Court of First
Instance of
in which the
Commission should be ordered to reimburse Finland also
the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

the European Communities,

Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net
output value arising from regular engagement in independent
activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the
rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta
Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on produc-
tion activities)?

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.

Finland submits that in its order the Court of First Instance
infringed Community law within the meaning of Article 58 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice.