Case C-300/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2007 — Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC Directive, health insurance, interpretation of the law, provision of services, social-security contribution

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?

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/9

3. If the provision referred to in the second question is to be or
could be classified as a ‘service’, is Article 1(4) of the direc-
tive — as distinct from a ‘framework agreement’ within the
meaning of Article 1(5) of the directive — to be interpreted
as meaning that a ‘service concession’ also includes the
award of a contract in the form where

— the decision on whether and in what cases the contractor
taken not by the

is awarded specific contracts
contracting authority, but by third parties,

is

Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-335/07)

(2007/C 235/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

— the contractor

is paid by the contracting authority
because by law only that authority is liable to pay remu-
neration and is required to provide the service to third
parties, and

— the contractor does not have to provide, or offer as avail-
able, services of any kind prior to their use by the third
parties?

Parties

(1) OJ L 134, p. 114.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by:
I. Koskinen, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán,
acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged
on 12 July 2007 — Termoraggi SpA v Comune di Monza
and Others

(Case C-323/07)

(2007/C 235/14)

Language of the case: Italian

— declare that, by failing to require that urban waste water
entering collecting systems from all agglomerations of more
than 10 000 p.e be subject to more stringent treatment, the
Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of
21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1);

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Referring court

Pleas in law and main arguments

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Termoraggi SpA

Defendant: Comune di Monza and Others

Question referred

Is Article 6 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 to be
regarded as applying to the question at issue in the present
proceedings, and what interpretation is to be given to that
article for the purposes of determining whether the contested
measures are compatible with the Community legislation, in the
terms stated in the grounds [of the Order]?

All aquatic environments in Finland must be regarded as ‘sensi-
It
tive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271/EEC.
follows that the obligation to ensure that all urban waste waters
entering collecting systems which originate from agglomerations
of more than 10 000 p.e are to be subject to more stringent
treatment is applicable to all Finnish territory. Nitrogen is an
important factor in eutrophication in parts of Selkämeri and a
dominant factor in Saaristomeri and the Gulf of Finland. In the
springtime, the capacity to treat nitrogen is reduced in the
central area of the Baltic Sea. The eutrophication in those areas
is indisputable. A reduction in the nitrogen and phosphorus
loads would help to prevent phytoplankton bloom in the spring
and summer. The Republic of Finland has infringed Article 5(2),
(3) and (5) of Directive 91/271/EEC in that it failed to ensure
that all nitrogen was removed from all urban waste water
entering collection systems and which originate from agglom-
erations of more than 10 000 p.e.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.