Case C-163/06 P: Order of the Court of 21 June 2007 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Actions for annulment — Inadmissibility — Act without binding legal effect — Own resources of the European Communities — Infringement proceedings — Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Default interest — Negotiation of an agreement concerning a conditional payment — Letters of refusal)
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, Member States' contribution, action for annulment (EU), appeal, financial legislation, infringement procedure (EU), own resources, payment

C 235/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

Order of the Court of 21 June 2007 — Republic of Finland
v Commission of the European Communities

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesger-
icht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2007 —
Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie
Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg

(Case C-163/06 P) (1)

(Appeals — Actions for annulment — Inadmissibility — Act
without binding legal effect — Own resources of the European
Communities — Infringement proceedings — Article 11 of
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Default interest
— Negotiation of an agreement concerning a conditional
payment — Letters of refusal)

(Case C-300/07)

(2007/C 235/13)

Language of the case: German

(2007/C 235/12)

Referring court

Language of the case: Finish

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin,
Agent)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie
Schuhtechnik

Defendant: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg

Questions referred

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)

the European

1.

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) of 9 January 2006 in Case T-177/05 Republic of
Finland v Commission dismissing as inadmissible the action for
annulment of a Commission decision allegedly contained in two
letters of the Commission by which it refused to enter into
negotiations on the conditional payment of retroactive customs
duties claimed by the Commission as own resources of the
Community (duties on imports of military equipment)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

(a) Is the requirement of ‘financing by the State’ as referred
to in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second sub-
paragraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March
2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts public supply contracts and
public service contracts (1) to be interpreted as including
a situation where the State prescribes membership of a
sickness insurance fund and the duty to pay contribu-
tions — whose amount is dependent on income — to
the relevant sickness insurance fund, which sets the
contribution rate, but the sickness insurance funds are
linked to one another by a system of solidarity-based
financing described in greater detail
in the grounds
hereof and the satisfaction of the liabilities of each indivi-
dual sickness insurance fund is guaranteed?

(b) Is the requirement referred to in the second alternative of
letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) that
the body be ‘subject
to management supervision by
those bodies’ to be interpreted to the effect that State
legal supervision which concerns current or future trans-
actions — with other possible means of State interven-
tion described in the grounds hereof — is sufficient to
satisfy that requirement?

2. If the first question — in part (a) or (b) — is answered in the
affirmative, are letters (c) and (d) of Article 1(2) of the direc-
tive to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of goods
which are individually manufactured and tailored, in terms of
their form, to meet the needs of the particular customer, and
on whose use the individual customer is to be advised, are to
be classified as ‘supply contracts’ or as ‘service contracts’? Is
only the value of the particular services to be taken into
consideration?