CELEX: C2003/070/20
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-30/03: Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária

C 70/12                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
than life assurance ( 1), as supplemented and amended by                Pleas in law and main arguments
Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC (2) and Third Council
Directive 92/49/EEC ( 3), and Articles 17 and 18 of First Council
Directive 79/267/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations           Under Article 7 of the General Conditions of the Contract , the
and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and             Court of First Instance of the European Communities and, on
pursuit of the business of direct life assurance (4), as amended        appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Communities have
and supplemented by Second Council Directive 90/619/EEC (5)             jurisdiction in any action concerning the validity, application
and Third Council Directive 92/96/EEC (6), may the national             and interpretation of the contract.
legislature provide that, where an insurance company is the
subject of insolvency proceedings, is put into liquidation or is
otherwise in a state of insolvency, claims arising from an              Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-
employment relationship with it are satisfied from the assets           mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its
which are included in its technical provisions in preference to         obligations under the contract.
claims of persons entitled to an insurance payment and of
successors to all or certain of their rights?
( 1) OJ L 228 of 16.08.1973, p. 3.
( 2) OJ L 172 of 04.07.1988, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 228 of 11.08.1992, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 63 of 13.03.1979, p. 1.
( 5) OJ L 330 of 29.11.1990, p. 50.                                     Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
( 6) OJ L 360 of 09.12.1992, p. 1.                                      of the European Communities against ITEC-Instituto
                                                                                   Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária
                                                                                                (Case C-30/03)
                                                                                                (2003/C 70/20)
Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
of the European Communities against ITEC-Instituto
           Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária                        An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa
                                                                        Comunitária was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                        the European Communities on 27 January 2003 by the
                         (Case C-29/03)                                 Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2003/C 70/19)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa              (a)   order the defendant to pay EUR 29 538,01, consisting of
Comunitária was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    EUR 26 105,97 as a capital amount and EUR 3 432,04
European Communities on 27 January 2003 (previously                           by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 January 2003)                5,25 %;
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an           (b)   order payment of EUR 3,75 per diem, by way of interest
address for service in Luxembourg.                                            at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full
                                                                              payment is made;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (c)   order the defendant to pay the costs.
(a)   order the defendant to pay EUR 69 089,84 consisting of
      EUR 62 236,65 as a capital amount and EUR 6 853,19
      by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      6,28 %;
(b)   order payment of EUR 10,71 per diem, by way of interest           Under Article 12(2) of the contract, the Court of First Instance
      at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full                 of the European Communities and, on appeal, the Court of
      payment is made;                                                  Justice of the European Communities have jurisdiction in any
                                                                        action concerning the validity, application and interpretation
(c)   order the defendant to pay the costs.                             of the contract.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 70/13
Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-                          ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its               which had supplied gratuitous services?
obligations under the contract.
                                                                          3.    Can Council Directive 89/665/EEC ( 5) of 21 December
                                                                                1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                                public works contracts, and in particular Articles 2(1)(a)
                                                                                and 5 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a con-
                                                                                tracting authority may exclude, up to the end of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat,                       process of evaluation of the tenders, from participation in
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of                           the procedure or submission of a tender, an undertaking
27 December 2002 in the case of La Société Anonyme                              connected to any person who has been responsible for
                 Fabricom against l’Etat Belge                                  research, testing, study or development in respect of the
                                                                                works, supplies or services, although when questioned in
                                                                                that regard by the contracting authority that undertaking
                          (Case C-34/03)                                        declares that it has gained therefrom no unfair advantage
                                                                                of a nature such as to distort the normal conditions of
                                                                                competition?
                         (2003/C 70/21)
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 1.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    (3 ) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 54.
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat,                   (4 ) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
                                                                          (5 ) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 December 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 29 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La
Société Anonyme Fabricom against l’Etat Belge (the Belgian
State) on the following questions:
1.    Do Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
      to the coordination of procedures for the award of public           Action brought on 31 January 2003 by the Commission
      service contracts (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,              of the European Communities against Ireland
      Council Directive 93/36/EC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
      procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2),
      and in particular Article 5(7) thereof, Council Directive                                     (Case C-35/03)
      93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
      of procedures for the award of public works contracts (3),                                   (2003/C 70/22)
      in particular Article 6(6) thereof, and Directive 97/52/EC
      of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/
      36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning procedures for the
      award of public service contracts, public supply contracts          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      and public works contracts ( 4), in particular Articles 2(1(b)      Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2003 by
      and 3(1)(b) thereof, in conjunction with the principle of           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
      proportionality, freedom of trade and industry and                  by N. Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      respect for the law of property guaranteed in particular            Luxembourg.
      by the protocol of 20 March 1992 to the Convention
      for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person              a)    find that Ireland has failed in its obligations under the EC
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                  Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      development in respect of those works, supplies or                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      services where that person has not been given an                          Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concern-
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the                    ing the framework agreement on fixed-term work con-
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort                    cluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP ( 1), or by failing to
      competition?                                                              ensure that management and labour have introduced the
                                                                                necessary measures by agreement, and/or by failing to
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if                inform the Commission thereof;
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-           b)    condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.