CELEX: C2003/070/10
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-18/03 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 November 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the European Communities

C 70/6                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.3.2003
The Commission submits, therefore, in reliance on the detailed             II.     a) Is Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive ( 1) to be
legal submissions in its appeal in case T-5/02, that the                               interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of dis-
contested judgment should be annulled in the event that the                            crimination contained therein is restricted to the
appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment in case T-                       requirement that the system operator must not draw
5/02 is successful.                                                                    any distinction in granting access to the system by
                                                                                       means of technical rules?
( 1) OJ C 156, 29.06.2002, p. 27.                                                     If so, is an allocation method relating to the cross-
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on                       border transport capacity of electricity to be regarded
     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
                                                                                      as a technical rule within the meaning of the abov-
     30.12.1989, p. 1).
( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001                       ementioned provision?
     declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
     market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.                               b) In the event that the allocation method must be
                                                                                      regarded as a technical rule or in the event that
                                                                                      Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive is not limited
                                                                                      to technical rules, is a rule under which preferential
                                                                                      cross-border transport capacity is made available for
                                                                                      contracts concluded in connection with a particular
                                                                                      public task compatible with the prohibition of dis-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                                                                                      crimination contained in that article?
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgemnt of that Court
of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Ver-
eniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam
                                                                           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and                           of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie;                         market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20).
Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratie-
                               kantoor
                           (Case C-17/03)
                           (2003/C 70/09)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 Nov-
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                 ember 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                 Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
Industry) of 13 November 2002, received at the Court                       T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela
Registry on 16 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the               Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the
proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en                                        European Communities
Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and
3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en
toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit                                         (Case C-18/03 P)
Administratiekantoor on the following questions:
                                                                                                        (2003/C 70/10)
I.     a) Can Article 86(2) EC be invoked to justify continuing
           to grant a company which was formerly entrusted
           with the operation of services of general economic
           interest and which entered into certain commitments             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November
           in connection with such operation a special right to            2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
           enable it to honour those commitments after the                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/
           particular task assigned to it has been completed?              99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind
                                                                           SL and the Commission of the European Communities was
       b) If this question is answered in the affirmative, is a rule       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
           which provides for the preferential allocation for a            ties on 17 January 2003 by the appellants, represented by
           period of ten years of half to a quarter (declining             Maurizio Carretta, lawyer.
           over time) of the cross-border transport capacity for
           electricity to the undertaking concerned nevertheless
           invalid because it                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
           1.    is not proportionate in relation to the — public
                 — interest served thereby;                                1.     As regards the substance,
           2.    affects trade to such an extent as would be                      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of
                 contrary to the interests of the Community?                            9 March 1999
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 70/7
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of                   1.    Is the first sentence of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97 (1)
            4 March 1999                                                      to be understood as meaning that, in a private-law
                                                                              contractual relationship, only the final amount of the
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of                         invoice, or an individual amount detailed on the invoice,
            4 March 1999                                                      may or must be rounded, or does a contractually agreed
                                                                              unit price/tariff (in this case a price per minute) constitute
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of                         a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for within
            4 March 1999                                                      the meaning of that provision? In determining whether a
                                                                              tariff is a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for
      in the alternative, reduce the amount of subsidy to repay               within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97,
      to the Commission to a lesser amount as may be decided                  is it decisive whether the tariff relates to a particular
      in the course of proceedings;                                           multiple (in this case six) of a unit on the basis of which
                                                                              the final amount of the invoice is ascertained (in this case
2.    as a measure of inquiry, allow the claims submitted in the              a ten-second unit), or whether it is the tariff as perceived
      present proceedings;                                                    by consumers that represents the relevant amount of the
                                                                              invoice?
3.    in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        2.    Is Regulation 1103/97(and in particular Article 5) to be
                                                                              understood as constituting an exhaustive rule whereby
                                                                              sums other than monetary amounts to be paid or
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              accounted for (if any) may not be rounded in the manner
                                                                              described in Article 5, in other words, must they either
The judgment of the Court of First Instance rejected all the                  continue to be displayed in the former national currency,
pleas in law submitted by the appellants and thus dismissed                   or be quoted in the exact amount produced on conver-
the applications in their entirety. As regards the first plea in              sion?
law, the appellant undertakings share the view the Court of
First Instance in its reasoning from the legal point of view.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 162 of 19.06.1997, p. 1.
On the other hand, the appellants argue that so far as the
remaining pleas are concerned, the Court of First Instance has
not made clear the reasons for its own view, nor does it
even demonstrate that the Commission’s decisions were well
founded: it merely repeated the arguments used in the
contested decisions.                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                        eerste Aanleg, Bruges by order of that Court of 17 January
                                                                        2003 in the criminal matters brought by the Public
According to the appellants, the judgment of the Court of First         Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alexan-
Instance is vitiated by the inadequacy, inconsistency and                        der van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong
contradictions of the grounds.
                                                                                                   (Case C-20/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 70/12)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
München by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van eerste
the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Hamburg
                                                                        Aanleg (Court of First Instance), Bruges of 17 January 2003,
          e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2003, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the criminal matters brought by the
                          (Case C-19/03)                                Public Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alex-
                                                                        ander van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong on the following
                          (2003/C 70/11)                                questions:
                                                                        (a)   Because the interests sought to be protected by the
                                                                              legislature could be safeguarded by other less stringent
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        means, are Articles 30 to 37 (free movement of goods) of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht München                      the EC Treaty, as applicable on 6 September 2001,
(Regional Court, Munich) of 17 December 2002, received at                     Article 48 et seq. of that Treaty (freedom of movement
the Court Registry on 20 January 2003, for a preliminary                      for persons), or Article 59 et seq. thereof (freedom to
ruling in the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Ham-                   provide services), infringed by Articles 2, 3, 5(3) and 13
burg e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG on the                              of the Belgian law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise of
following questions:                                                          itinerant activities and the organisation of public markets,