CELEX: C2002/289/12
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-294/02: Action brought on 14 August 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against (1) Alcatel Microelectronics N.V., (2) A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, (3) Intracom S.A. Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, (4) Ision Sales & Services GmbH & Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH, (6) Landesbank Kiel, Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in liquidation

23.11.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Berufungssenat I                 Action brought on 14 August 2002 by the Commission
der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Ober-                    of the European Communities against (1) Alcatel Microe-
österreich mit Sitz in Linz by order of that Court of                      lectronics N.V., (2) A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft
11 July 2002 in the appeal bought by Herbert Handlbauer                    mbH, (3) Intracom S.A. Hellenic Telecommunications &
                                GmbH                                       Electronic Industry, (4) Ision Sales & Services GmbH &
                                                                           Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH, (6) Landesbank Kiel,
                                                                              Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in liquidation
                          (Case C-278/02)
                                                                                                   (Case C-294/02)
                          (2002/C 289/11)                                                          (2002/C 289/12)
                                                                           An action against (1) Alcatel Microelectronics N.V., (2)
                                                                           A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, (3) Intracom S.A.
                                                                           Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, (4) Ision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Sales & Services GmbH & Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH,
European Communities by order of the Berufungssenat I der                  (6) Landesbank Kiel, Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in
Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich               liquidation was brought before the Court of Justice of the
mit Sitz in Linz (Linz Regional Appeal Board I at the Provincial           European Communities on 14 August 2002 (received at the
Finance Directorate for Upper Austria, in Linz) of 11 July                 Court of First Instance on 12 August 2002) by the Commission
2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2002, for a                of the European Communities, represented by Günter Wilms,
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Herbert Handlbau-              of its Legal Service, assisted by Rolf Karpenstein, lawyer, with
er GmbH on the following questions:                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
1.    Is Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of                    The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      18 December 1995 on the protection of the European                   the Court should:
      Communities’ financial interests (1) directly applicable in
      the Member States, in particular in the field of organis-
      ations of the market (export refunds) where there are                (1) order the defendants, as joint and several debtors, to pay
      irregularities?                                                            to the applicant EUR 317 214,00 plus interest at the rate
                                                                                 of 2 % above the rate applied by the European Monetary
                                                                                 Institute for euro transactions on the sum of
                                                                                 EUR 125 820,00 since 8 June 1998 and on the sum of
      a.    Is Article 3(1) of the said regulation, which lays down
                                                                                 EUR 191 394,00 since 6 May 1999;
            a limitation period of four years for proceedings
            concerning irregularities, directly applicable by the
            customs authorities of the Member States?                      (2) order the defendants to pay the costs.
2.    Is the announcement of a customs inspection made to
      the relevant responsible persons of an undertaking an act
      relating to investigation or legal proceedings which                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      interrupts the limitation period of four years under
      Article 3(1) of the said regulation, if the inspection takes
      place under Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 (2) because of               By its action, the applicant seeks repayment of the difference
      the generally known risk or the frequency of acts                    between the advances paid by way of assistance towards a
      prejudicial to the financial interests of the Community in           project the ‘Electronic Commerce Fulfilment Service for the
      implementing the common agricultural policy?                         Electronics Industry’) and the financial contribution to be
                                                                           acknowledged as contractually due from the Commission. It is
                                                                           claimed that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction in the matter
                                                                           by virtue of an agreed jurisdiction clause (reading: ‘The Court
( 1) OJ L 312 [1995], p. 1.                                                of First Instance of the European Communities, ... shall have
( 2) OJ L 388 [1989], p. 18.                                               exclusive jurisdiction in any dispute between the Commission
                                                                           and the Contractors concerning the validity, application and
                                                                           interpretation of this contract’).