CELEX: C2003/044/25
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-455/02 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2002 by Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l. against the judgment delivered on 26 September 2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-199/99 between Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the Commission of the European Communities

22.2.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 44/13
(3) Is Directive 90/605/EEC compatible with the general                     of certain alleged irregularities in its conduct. According to the
      principle of equality in so far as it places at a disadvantage        applicant, the Customs Service merely has jurisdiction to
      those Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable                 record in its statements facts gathered during the course of its
      partner is a private limited company as compared with                 investigations. It is not competent to evaluate those facts and
      Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable partner               the Commission ought to have conducted its own investigation
      is a natural person, even though creditors of a GmbH &                of the matter. The applicant says that, in finding the Customs
      Co. KG (a limited partnership in which the unlimited                  Service’s statement to be sufficient proof, the Court of First
      partner is a private company) are better protected by the             Instance erred in law and its judgment is thereby vitiated.
      duty of disclosure imposed on private limited companies
      than are creditors of a Kommanditgesellschaft whose
      personally liable partner, as a natural person, is not under
      any duties of disclosure?                                             The applicant maintains that the judgment is also vitiated by
                                                                            the fact that the Court failed to give consideration to the
                                                                            subjective element as a decisive factor in determining whether
( 1) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.                                         a decision to withdraw a certain grant was permissible. The
( 2) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
                                                                            Court should have distinguished between the possible case of a
                                                                            culpable, but not fraudulent, breach of the financial conditions,
                                                                            such as would justify no more than the reduction or suspension
                                                                            of the grant, and a fraudulent breach of the financial conditions,
                                                                            entitling the Commission to withdraw the grant in its entirety.
Appeal brought on 13 December 2002 by Sgaravatti
Mediterranea S.r.l. against the judgment delivered on
                                                                            Lastly, the applicant maintains that the Court’s finding that
26 September 2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                            there is no possibility of a breach of the principle of ne bis in
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                            idem is questionable, given that the sanction imposed by means
T-199/99 between Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the
                                                                            of the injunction issued in Italy came after the Community
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            decision. According to the applicant, when the Commission
                                                                            decided to withdraw the grant which was due it knew or ought
                        (Case C-455/02 P)                                   to have known that an administrative sanction would be
                                                                            handed down in Italy.
                         (2003/C 44/25)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 September
2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-199/99 between
Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 13 December 2002
by Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l., a company with registered
offices in Capoterra (CA), Italy, represented by Massimo Merola             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
and Piero A.M. Ferrari, Lawyers.                                            Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 21 No-
                                                                            vember 2002 in the proceedings between Michel Trojani
                                                                                  and Le Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered
      on 26 September 2002 in Case T-199/99;                                                        (Case C-456/02)
—     annul Commission Decision C(1999) 1502 of 4 June
      1990 or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the                                        (2003/C 44/26)
      Court of First Instance in accordance with Article 54 of
      the EC Statute of the Court of Justice;
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of
      both sets of proceedings.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 21 November 2002,
                                                                            received at the Court Registry on 18 December 2002, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Michel Trojani
The applicant takes issue with the improper use of a statement              and Le Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles on the
made by the Customs Service as evidence, sufficient in itself,              following questions: