CELEX: C2003/184/47
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-251/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

C 184/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            2.8.2003
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the Commission of the                   Commission. Since the defendant did not produce the evidence
European Communities against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’                          needed to overturn the audit's conclusions, the Commission
(Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2)                       considered the contracts to be terminated and sought reimbur-
                  Marios Kontaratos and Others                            sement of the sums overpaid.
                          (Case C-249/03)                                 The Commission pleads:
                          (2003/C 184/46)                                 —     in support of its principal claim: Article 8,2 of Annex II
                                                                                to the contracts, which provides that the Commission
                                                                                may terminate the contract inter alia if, in order to obtain
                                                                                the financial contribution of the Commission, or any
An action against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ (Transport Environ-                       other advantage under the contract, a contractor has
ment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and                         made false or incomplete statements for which it may
Others was brought before the Court of Justice of the                           properly be held responsible;
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of             —     in support of the principal head of claim regarding
its Legal Service, Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar, and                          payment of interest: the second subparagraph of
K. Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service                  Article 8,4 of Annex II to the contracts, which provides
in Luxembourg.                                                                  that interest is due from the date on which the payments
                                                                                in question were received, at the rate applied by the
                                                                                European Monetary Cooperation Fund (now the European
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                    Central Bank) increased by two percentage points;
—     allow the application in its entirety;                              —     in support of the alternative head of claim regarding
                                                                                payment of interest: Article 94 of Commission Regulation
—     order the defendant partnership ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ and the                   No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed
      defendants who are members thereof to reimburse to the                    rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
      Commission the entire amount of the wrongly made                          Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (2).
      advance payments received by the defendant partnership
      from the Community in respect of the contracts at issue,
      that is to say the sum of EUR 195 435, together with                (1) OJ L 206, 30.7.1988, p. 1.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1.
      contractual interest in respect of the period from the date
      of mispayment, the interest calculated in that way
      amounting on 30 September 2002 to EUR 84 489,14
      and thereafter EUR 35,45 (29,17 plus 6,28) per day until
      the defendant's debt has been fully discharged, or, in the
      alternative, interest for late payment under Article 94 of
      Commission Regulation No 3418/93 on the whole sum
      of EUR 195 345, at a rate of 5,50% from 31 December
      1998 (when the period laid down by the order for                    Action brought on 11 June 2003 by the Commission of
      payment expired) until the defendant's debt has been fully          the European Communities against the Portuguese
      discharged, amounting up until 30 September 2002 to                                                Republic
      EUR 40 315,83 and thereafter EUR 29,45 per day;
                                                                                                    (Case C-251/03)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                                                    (2003/C 184/47)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June
The defendant ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ is a civil-law partnership                  2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
governed by Greek law, which has as its object the promotion              represented by António Caeiros and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
of research and the dissemination of information on proble-               acting as Agents.
matical issues in relation to the environment, development,
town planning, transport and so forth. It concluded with the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission, within the framework of Council Decision 88/
416/EEC of 29 June 1988 on a Community programme in the
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
field of road transport informatics and telecommunications
                                                                                ensure that water intended for human consumption meets
(Drive) (1), the following contracts: (i) Contract BATT — V
                                                                                the requirements laid down in Annex I to Council Direc-
2029 (implementation of the project ‘BATT — Behaviour and
                                                                                tive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of
ATT’) and (ii) Contract MIRO — V 2060 (implementation of
                                                                                water intended for human consumption, the Portuguese
the project ‘Mobility impact, reactions and opinions’).
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7
                                                                                (6) of that directive; and
Serious financial contraventions on the part of the defendant
were found following audits by the Court of Auditors and the              —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 184/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            fisheries sector (EC/Argentina Agreement) so far as
                                                                           concerns the legal basis of the contested decision.
The Portuguese authorities failed to take any measures to                  According to the Court of First Instance, the Commission
ensure that, within various parameters, water intended for                 was competent to take Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and
human consumption met the requirements laid down in                        in particular on Article 24 thereof as the legal basis for
Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC and, therefore, the Portuguese             the decision to reduce financial aid. However, the EC/
Republic has failed to fulfil, within the prescribed period, its           Argentina Agreement lays down a specific legal system
obligations under Article 7(6) thereof. The fact that the Portu-           for joint enterprises established within its framework, so
guese Republic has or is about to take steps or measures                   that provisions of general application are not applicable
which, according to the Portuguese authorities, have as their              where the Agreement makes no express reference thereto;
main objective to reach the quality levels for water intended              such reference is made only in relation to the submission
for human consumption laid down by Community law does                      of projects for approval and requests and procedure for
not justify that Member State having failed to fulfil its obliga-          payment.
tions.
                                                                       —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns the role played by the Joint Committee and the
                                                                           Argentinian authorities. The Court of First Instance
                                                                           considers that the Commission was not required to
                                                                           consult either the Joint Committee or the Argentinian
Appeal brought on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira SA                        authority before reducing financial aid. Thus it disregards
against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the                      the institutional structure established by the Agreement.
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-126/01 between
Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of the European
                            Communities                                —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns application of the procedure provided for by
                         (Case C-254/03 P)                                 Article 44 of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, repealed
                                                                           from 1 January 1994 and thus inapplicable in the present
                                                                           case, to the procedure for reducing financial aid. Accord-
                          (2003/C 184/48)                                  ingly, there was no legal basis for the consultation with
                                                                           the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-126/01 between Eduardo                  —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
Vieira SA and Commission of the European Communities was                   concerns application of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-                 when assessing the amount of the reduction of the
nities on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira S.A., represented by              financial assistance. The Commission ought to have
Ramón García-Gallardo and Mª Dolores Domínguez Pérez,                      applied a reduction based on that regulation but only
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 within the framework of the EC/Argentina Agreement and
                                                                           having regard to its scale of assessment. The application
                                                                           of the scale of assessment established in Regulation
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           No 3699/93 entails an additional sanction on the bene-
                                                                           ficiary.
1.    declare the present appeal admissible;
2.    set aside the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the
      Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              —   Infringement of Community law as regards force majeure.
      European Communities in Case T-126/01 between                        The Court of First Instance disregards the obligation on
      Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of the European                     the Commission so far as concerns the legal classification
      Communities;                                                         of certain events as force majeure.
3.    order the European Commission to pay the entire costs of
      proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as those
      incurred at first instance.                                      —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns the need to seek Commission approval before
                                                                           leaving Argentinian fishing waters. The Court of First
                                                                           Instance considers that the appellant was required to
                                                                           inform the Commission of difficulties in carrying out the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            project and could not leave the Argentinian exclusive
                                                                           economic zone without the prior approval of the
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed            Commission. Nevertheless, if an ‘international component’
Community law. The appellant relies on six pleas in law:                   is acknowledged to exist, authorisation by the Argentinian
                                                                           authority should suffice.
—     Infringement of the Agreement between the Community
      and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea