CELEX: C2000/176/27
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-155/00: Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 176/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.6.2000
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Commission of                    Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case C-155/00)                                                         (Case C-157/00)
                          (2000/C 176/27)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 176/28)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as            Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
Agent, assisted by Massimo Moretto, of the Venice Bar, with             represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            Legal Service, Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of that
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that Service,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
— declare that, by adopting Law No 21 of the Region of
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Lombardy, which allows contracting authorities to grant
     concessions for works without complying with the rules
     on advertising or to award public works contracts, without         — grant the application;
     having first issued a public invitation to tender, to under-
     takings which have submitted projects, the Italian Republic
                                                                        — annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
                                                                             C(2000) 488 Final/1.3.2000 excluding from Community
     93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
                                                                             financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
     of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1),
                                                                             States under the Guarantee Section of the European
     in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof;
                                                                             Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF),
                                                                             which has been published in the Official Journal of the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                               European Communities as Decision No 2000/216/EC (OJ
                                                                             2000 L 67, p. 37), so far as concerns the chapters thereof
                                                                             specifically contested, relating to financial corrections to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Article 32 of the Regional Law allows contracting authorities
(a) to grant concessions for works the value of which is equal
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
to or greater than ECU 5 000 000 without complying with
the rules on advertising and (b) to award public works
contracts the amount of which is equal to or greater than the           — Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 5 of
threshold indicated above without first publishing an invitation             Regulation No 2221/95, in the alternative incorrect assess-
to tender, alternatively by means of a negotiated procedure, in              ment of the facts.
circumstances different from those exceptional cases implicitly
enumerated by the directive. The correctness of such an
                                                                        — Infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70
interpretation is demonstrated by the way in which Article 32
                                                                             and overstepping by the Commission of the limits of its
has been applied by the Municipality of Monza in the context
                                                                             discretion.
of a procedure for the construction of a plant for the disposal
of solid urban waste.
                                                                        — No legal basis for imposing the financial correction at issue
                                                                             and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
Moreover, even if it were to be held that the Municipality of
Monza had misinterpreted and misapplied Article 32 in the
belief that that article permitted derogations from the normal          — With regard to the undertaking not to replant: misinterpret-
rules on advertising, that in itself shows, according to the                 ation of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation No 2505/95 and
Commission, that the wording of Article 32 does not satisfy the              Articles 3 and 4(3) of Regulation No 2684/95.
requirements of clarity, unambiguousness and legal certainty
imposed on the Member States by virtue of the settled case-
                                                                        — With regard to the failure to record the date on the
law of the Court with regard to the transposition of directives.
                                                                             certificates: misinterpretation of Article 4 of Regulation No
                                                                             2684/95 — incorrect assessment of the facts.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9 August 1993, p. 54.
                                                                        — With regard to the failure to give advance notice of
                                                                             the date of grubbing-up operations: misinterpretation of
                                                                             Article 5 of Regulation No 2684/95.