CELEX: C2003/184/39
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-236/03 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2003 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-213/00 between CMA CGM and thirteen other liner shipping companies and the Commission of the European Communities

C 184/22               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         2.8.2003
Is it contrary to Articles 12, 43 et seq. and 49 et seq. of the EC       Pleas in law and main arguments
Treaty, and Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts, to include in the general             The Commission submits that the CFI'S ruling contains
specifications and special administrative clauses and technical          numerous contradictions and inconsistencies, not to say distor-
specifications governing public competitions relating to home            tions and that, accordingly, the contested judgment would
respiratory treatments and other assisted breathing techniques:          render the division of offenders into groups, which is a key
                                                                         element of the Guidelines, unworkable. The Commission main-
                                                                         tains that it followed an approach which is both entirely
1)    the requirement that, in order to qualify to tender, under-        reasonable and wholly consonant with the principle of non-
      takings must already have offices open to the public in            discrimination.
      the province or capital of the province in which the
      service is to be provided;
                                                                         In the Commission's submission, the CFI has erred in finding
2)    award criteria which favour:                                       that the Decision contained inadequate reasoning and has, in
                                                                         any event, exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction.
      a)    tenders from undertakings established within a
            1 000 Km radius of the capital in which the service          According to the Commission the contested ruling would
            is to be provided;                                           severely fetter the Commission's discretion when setting fines,
                                                                         and would be virtually tantamount to imposing on the
      b)    undertakings which already have offices open to the          Commission a duty to apply a mathematical or ‘scientifically’
            public in certain towns in that province; or                 verifiable formula. This would seriously undermine the
                                                                         Commission's discretion, and thus its power and duty to
      c)    undertakings which have been providing the service           pursue infringements of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.
            previously?
                                                                         Finally the Commission contests the CFI's finding that the
(1) OJ L 209 of 18.06.1992, p. 1.                                        imposition of fines was time-barred and maintains that such
                                                                         finding is unsustained by any reasoning in the judgment.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 124, 24.05.2003, p. 18.
Appeal brought on 2 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
19 March 2003 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in case T-213/
00 (1) between CMA CGM and thirteen other liner ship-
ping companies and the Commission of the European
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                            Communities
                                                                         d'Instance de Roubaix by judgment of that court of
                                                                         15 May 2003 in the case of Banque Sofinco SA against
                        (Case C-236/03 P)                                                   Daniel and Carole Djemoui
                          (2003/C 184/39)
                                                                                                  (Case C-237/03)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2003                                         (2003/C 184/40)
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-213/00 between CMA CGM
and thirteen other liner shipping companies and the Commis-
sion of the European Communities was brought before the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 June 2003              European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d'instance
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented               (District Court), Roubaix of 15 May 2003 received at the
by P. Oliver, acting as agent, with an address for service in            Court Registry on 4 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
Luxembourg.                                                              the case of Banque Sofinco SA against Daniel and Carole
                                                                         Djemoui on the following questions:
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Must Council Directives 87/102/EC (1) of 22 December
—     annul point 1 of the judgment of the Court of First                      1986 and 90/88/EC (2) of 22 February 1990 be inter-
      Instance of 19 March 2003 in Case T-213/00 (CMA                          preted as requiring the national court to favour the
      CGM v. Commission);                                                      interpretation of national law obliging consumer credit
                                                                               institutions to inform the borrower/consumer in writing
—     reject the Respondents' Application in its entirety;                     of the current annual percentage rate of charge, before
                                                                               each renewal of a credit agreement renewable in instal-
—     order the Respondents to pay the Commission's costs.                     ments in which the interest is stipulated to be variable?