Case C-214/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia lodged on  11 May 2006  — Colasfalti srl v Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl,Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, free competition, interpretation of the law, public contract, works contract

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/19

4. Must Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC be interpreted as not
permitting the scope of such a system to be limited to
persons who are resident in the territorial components of a
federal Member State of the European Community which
are covered by that system?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

Appeal brought on 9 May 2006 by the European Agency
for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgement of the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23
February 2006 in Case T-471/04: Georgios Karatzoglou v
European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

(Case C-213/06 P)

(2006/C 178/30)

dant as a contract for an indefinite period of employment, it
decided that the European Agency for Reconstruction (herein-
after EAR) could only terminate that contract in two circum-
stances — substantial reduction or winding-up of EAR's opera-
tion — which would be tantamount to considering the contract
as a contract for a fixed term of employment the duration of
which depended upon those criteria.

The applicant further maintains that the Court of First Instance
erred in law in so deciding because Council Regulation No
2667/2000 (1) which lays down rules concerning the func-
tioning of EAR forbids the EAR to contract such an obligation
since it is obliged to limit the recruitment of staff to what is
strictly necessary with regard to the evolving needs of the EAR.

The applicant finally submits that should the EAR have created
a legitimate expectation not
to terminate the defendant's
contract except in the specific circumstance of a significant
reduction of its operation, such an expectation would be illegi-
timate with regard to the obligation deriving from the Condi-
the European
tions of Employment of Other Servants of
Communities and from the Council regulations governing the
creation and functioning of the EAR.

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ L 305, p. 7.

Parties

Appellant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers and K. Niafas, agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Georgios Karatzoglou

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgement of the Fourth Chamber of the
Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/
04 (Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Recon-
struction (EAR) ) in full;

— Give judgement itself;

— Dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the
EAR of 26 February 2004 terminating the contract of the
applicant at first instance as a member of the termporary
staff;

— Order the applicant at first instance and respondent on

appeal to pay the costs of the appeal.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia lodged on 11
May 2006 — Colasfalti srl v Provincia di Milano, ATI
Legrenzi Srl,Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i
Paccani Snc

(Case C-214/06)

(2006/C 178/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant(s): Colasfalti srl

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
law when, having qualified the contract signed by the defen-

Defendant(s): Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl,Impresa
Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc

C 178/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Question(s) referred

Defendant: Ireland

1. Does the rule laid down in Article 30(4) of Directive
93/37/EEC (1) or the similar rule contained in Article 55 (1)
and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) (where that is regarded
as 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, such as to
transcend the formal bounds set by the value of
the
contracts mentioned in Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EC and
is it, therefore, capable of applying also to contracts when
their value does not cross that threshold?

2. Is

the rule established by Article 30(4) of Directive
93/37/EEC or the similar rule contained in Article 55(1) and
(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (where that is regarded as 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 administra-
tive transparency 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 199, p. 54.
(2) OJ 134, p. 114.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt all measures necessary to
ensure that projects which are within the scope of Directive
85/337/EEC on the assessment of
the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (1) either
before or after modification by Directive 97/11/EC (2) are,
first
before they are executed are in whole or in part,
considered with regard to the need for an environmental
impact as assessment and, secondly, where likely to have
significant effects on the environment by virtue, of their
nature, size or location, made subject to an assessment with
regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of
Directive 85/337/EEC, Ireland has failed to comply with the
obligations that it has under Articles 2, 4 and 5 to 10 of
Directive 85/337/EEC, and

— by failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that
the development consents given for and the execution of
wind-farm developments and associated works at Derry-
brien, County Galway were preceded by an assessment
with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5
to 10 of Directive 85/337/EEC,
Ireland has failed to
comply with the obligations that it has under Articles 2,
4 and 5 to 10 of the said Directive 85/337/EEC;

2. order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 11 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

The Commission submits that
Ireland's implementation of
Council directive 85/337/CEE (the Impact Assessment Direc-
tive) is and has been deficient for the following reasons:

(Case C-215/06)

(2006/C 178/32)

Language of the case: English

Ireland has failed to take measures to ensure that checks are
made to ascertain whether proposed works are liable to have
significant effects on the environment
in accordance with
Article 2(1) of the Impact Assessment Directive. Ireland's legis-
lation does not provide that
those effects are assessed in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

The system in Ireland which allows an application for retention
permission to be made after a development has been executed
in whole or in part without consent undermines the preventive
objectives of the Impact Assessment Directive.