CELEX: C2000/063/22
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-473/99: Action brought on 10 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

4.3.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/11
Action brought on 2 December 1999 by the Commission                    1. Does a legal person constitute a ‘contracting authority’
of the European Communities against the French Republic                     within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive
                                                                            93/37/EEC (1) even if it was not established for the specific
                         (Case C-460/99)                                    purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not
                                                                            having an industrial or commercial character, but it now
                          (2000/C 63/20)                                    meets such needs?
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 2 December 1999 by the Commission of               2. If Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GesmbH is not a con-
the European Communities, represented by Maria Condou                       tracting authority, does the planned construction of the
Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address             second biological treatment phase of the principal sewage
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              plant, Vienna, constitute the execution, by whatever means,
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  of a work corresponding to the requirements specified by
                                                                            the contracting authority, and thus a ‘public works con-
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                      tract’ within the meaning of Article 1(a), in conjunction
the Court of Justice should:                                                with Article 1(c), of Directive 93/37/EEC?
— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             3. If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative,
    Council Directive 95/53/EC (1) of 25 October 1995 fixing                does Directive 89/665/EEC (2) preclude a national pro-
    the principles governing the organisation of official inspec-           vision which fixes a time-limit for the review of an
    tions in the field of animal nutrition, the French Republic             individual decision of the contracting authority so that on
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and           expiry of that time-limit the decision can no longer be
    the Treaty;                                                             challenged in the course of the ongoing contract award
                                                                            procedure? Is it necessary, on pain of forfeiture [of rights],
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                               for every defect to be pleaded by the persons concerned?
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                 4. If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                            is it sufficient for the body inviting tenders to determine
The binding nature of Articles 249 and 10 EC means that                     that the applications will be evaluated according to a
Member States to which a directive is addressed are required                method lodged with a notary, or is it necessary for the
to amend their legislation within the time-limits laid down                 evaluation criteria already to have been communicated in
therein. The period prescribed in Article 24 of Directive                   the call for candidates or the tender documents?
95/531/EC expired on 30 April 1998 and France has not
adopted the requisite measures or even given details of any
existing provisions which might meet the requirements of
certain provisions of the directive.                                   (1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
(1) OJ 1995 L 265, p. 17.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekon-
trollsenat, Vienna, by order of that court of 12 November
1999 in the case of Universale-Bau AG and the consortium               Action brought on 10 December 1999 by the Commission
of tenderers consisting of 1. Hinteregger & Söhne Bau-                     of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
ges.m.b.H. and 2. ÖSTÜ-STETTIN Hoch- und Tiefbau
     GmbH v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH
                                                                                                 (Case C-473/99)
                         (Case C-470/99)
                          (2000/C 63/21)                                                          (2000/C 63/22)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Vergabekontrollsenat              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
(Procurement Review Chamber), Vienna, of 12 November                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 December           10 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Universale-Bau AG        Communities, represented by Wolfgang Bogensberger, a mem-
and the consortium of tenderers consisting of 1. Hinteregger &         ber of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Söhne Bauges.m.b.H. and 2. ÖSTÜ-STETTIN Hoch- und                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also a
Tiefbau GmbH v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH, on                  member of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
the following questions:                                               Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 16 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the rules, regulations                                       Sweden
     and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Com-
     mission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the
     protection of workers from risks related to exposure to                                     (Case C-478/99)
     biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive
     within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
     89/391/EEC) (1) into national law within the prescribed
     period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its                                     (2000/C 63/24)
     obligations under the EC Treaty;
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        16 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Leo Parpal and Paolo Stancanelli,
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as Agents, with
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in             an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo
Case C-460/99 (2) the period for transposition prescribed in           Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner
Article 2 of Directive 95/30/EC expired on 30 November                 Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
1996.
(1) OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41.
(2) See p. 11 of this Official Journal.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993
                                                                             on unfair terms in consumer contracts by not adopting the
                                                                             laws and other provisions required to transpose the annex
                                                                             referred to in Article 3(3) of the directive into national law;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of
8 December 1999 in the case of Ambulanz Glöckner                       2. Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
against Landkreis Südwestpfalz, joined as third parties:
1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-
Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband
Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the
                       public interest, Mainz
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (Case C-475/99)
                            (2000/C 63/23)                             The Commission considers that it is important for the Directive
                                                                       to be implemented in such a way that the requirement for
                                                                       legal certainty is ensured and that the legal situation is clear to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 individuals so that they can become acquainted with all their
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-                  rights.
gericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Adminis-
trative Court) of 8 December 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 15 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Ambulanz Glöckner against Landkreis Südwestpfalz,              Article 8 of the Directive establishes that the directive has
joined as third parties: 1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesver-         minimal character whilst Article 3(3) refers to an indicative list
band Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landes-            in the annex. Member States can add new conditions, formulate
verband Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the       conditions more strictly (so as to make them more restrictive
public interest, Mainz, on the following question:                     for traders) or alter the ‘scope’ defined in point 2(a)2 of the
                                                                       list. On the other hand, they cannot exclude terms or formulate
Is the concession of a monopoly for the provision of ambu-             them in a way less favourable for consumers. The fact that
lance services over a defined geographical area compatible             Article 3(3) refers to the list and that the seventeenth recital of
with Article 86(1) and Article 81 of the EC Treaty?                    the preamble states that the scope of the terms referred to may
                                                                       only be the subject of amplification or more restrictive editing
                                                                       by the Member States in their national laws also leads to the
                                                                       conclusion that the list must be enacted in national legislation.