CELEX: C2004/085/22
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-22/04: Action brought on 26 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

C 85/14               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            3.4.2004
9.   Is there a conflict between Community competition law                     withdraw the invitation to tender (withdrawal decision
     and/or the fundamental principles of Community law                        analogous to the award decision) amenable to review in
     (with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13              any case, since the applicant is entitled to have that
     of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a                         decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met,
     national provision which requires a consumer or a third                   notwithstanding the possibility, once withdrawal has
     party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement                 taken place, of obtaining an award of damages?
     which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
     abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
     EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an                       (1) OJ L 395, p. 33.
     application to a court other than the one which has
     jurisdiction ratione loci on the basis of the registered
     office (sede) of the subsidiary of the insurance company
     with which they entered into a contract or in the court
     district in which the injured party is resident, having
     regard also to the difference in legal costs which each
     approach involves?
10. Does Community law require national courts to disapply
     national rules in conflict with Community law or rather             Action brought on 26 January 2004 by the Commission of
     to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?               the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                                   (Case C-22/04)
                                                                                                   (2004/C 85/22)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 12 January 2004                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against Bundesimmo-                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Janu-
                   biliengesellschaft m.b.H.                             ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Thomas van Rijn and Maria Kondou-Durande,
                                                                         Legal Advisers in its Legal Service.
                         (Case C-15/04)
                        (2004/C 85/21)                                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to ensure that fishing vessels which
                                                                               fly its flag and must be equipped with devices for position
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         monitoring by means of satellite were in fact equipped,
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                          according to the type of vessel, on 30 June 1998 or
(Austria) (Federal Procurement Office) of 12 January 2004,                     1 January 2000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
received at the Court Registry on 20 January 2004, for a                       its obligations under Article 3 of Council Regulation
preliminary ruling in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against                   (EEC) No 2847/93 (1) of 12 October 1993;
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft m.b.H. on the following ques-
tions:                                                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1.   Are the provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with
     Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
     21 December 1989 (1) so unconditional and sufficiently
     precise that, in the event of withdrawal of the invitation          Pleas in law and arguments
     to tender after the opening of tenders, an individual is
     entitled rely on those provisions directly before the
     national courts and to seek a review of the withdrawal?             The period for transposition of the regulation into national
                                                                         law expired on 1 January 2000.
2.   If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, are
     Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(1)(b) of Council
     Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 to be                      (1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
     interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged
     to make a contracting authority’s decision, prior to
     withdrawal of the invitation to tender, that it will