CELEX: C2000/020/16
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-388/99 P: Appeal brought on 12 October 1999 by the Xunta de Galicia against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova, S.A. and 31 Others and the Council of the European Union

C 20/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communi-                     3. Does the question whether the treatment as a whole or
ties, in which the Commission was requested to produce a                       only a proportion thereof involved in-patient care affect
certified true copy of certain minutes.                                        the answers to these questions?
                                                                          (1) — To ensure that provision of medical care by doctors and in
By order of 4 October 1999, the Court of Justice (Third                           hospitals is balanced and accessible to all.
Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and                  — To maintain the principle of benefits in kind applied in the
ordered the Commission to pay the costs.                                           Netherlands.
                                                                              — To ensure the financial equilibrium of the Netherlands social
                                                                                   security scheme.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 October 1999 by the Xunta de
                                                                          Galicia against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
                                                                          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                   European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
van Beroep by order of that court of 6 October 1999 in                    cova, S.A. and 31 Others and the Council of the European
the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Faurd against Onderlinge                                                      Union
Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen U.A. and
2. E.E.M van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschap-
                  pij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen                                                      (Case C-388/99 P)
                                                                                                      (2000/C 20/16)
                          (Case C-385/99)
                                                                          An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           (2000/C 20/15)                                 Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova, S.A. and
                                                                          31 Others and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    12 October 1999 by the Xunta de Galicia, represented by
European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van                    Vı́ctor M. Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, Creus Carreras, of the
Beroep [Higher Social Security Court] of 6 October 1999,                  Santiago de Compostela Bar, with an address for service at the
received at the Court Registry on 11 October 1999, for a                  Fundación Galicia-Europa, Avenue Milcamps 105 B, 1030
preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Fauré against           Brussels.
Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen
U.A. and 2. E.E.M. van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaat-              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
schappij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen on the following questions:
                                                                          1) Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July
                                                                               1999 in Case T-194/95 by reason of all or any of the
1. Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 49                    defects indicated and draw from the setting aside of that
     and 50 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that in principle                 order all legal consequences, either giving judgment on the
     a provision such as Article 9(4) of the Ziekenfondswet                    substance or referring the matter back to the Court of First
     [Law on Health Insurance], read in conjunction with                       Instance;
     Article 1 of the Regeling hulp in het buitenland zieken-
     fondsverzekering [Regulation on health care abroad under             2) Order the defendant before the Court of First Instance of
     the sickness insurance rules], is incompatible therewith in               the European Communities to pay the costs, at the same
     so far as it stipulates that in order to assert his entitlement           time giving a decision on the order for costs made against
     to benefits a person insured with a health insurance fund                 the defendant in the matter at first instance in the event of
     requires the prior authorisation of that fund to seek                     the present appeal being upheld wholly or in part.
     treatment from a person or establishment outside the
     Netherlands with whom or which the health insurance
     fund has not concluded an agreement?                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — Infringement of Community law involving misapplication
2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, do              and misinterpretation of Article 230 (previously 173) as
     the objectives of the Netherlands system of benefits in kind              regards rejection of the allegation of misuse of powers
     referred to above (1) constitute an overriding reason in the              vitiating the contested regulation since there is a total
     general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the               divergence between the ostensible aim thereof and the aim
     fundamental principle of freedom to provide services?                     really pursued by its adoption.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 20/9
— The remaining pleas and main arguments are analogous to               Nor can the scheme and purpose of the provisions relied on
      those put forward in Case C-300/99 p (1).                         be used to deny the plaintiff a claim for damages. If there is no
                                                                        decision, the appellant does not know what action, if any, the
                                                                        decision-making body is taking. The decisive factor is that
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 12.                                      silence on the part of that body should not be interpreted as a
                                                                        refusal. Silence is a legal nullity, of no commercial-law or
                                                                        constitutional-law significance as such. The purpose of the
                                                                        action for failure to act is merely to provide the appellant with
                                                                        an additional remedy should it be appropriate to achieve an
                                                                        immediate resolution of the dispute. However, the injured
                                                                        party cannot thereby lose the possibility of interrupting the
                                                                        limitation period. It is not within his control whether or not
                                                                        the body being challenged acts speedily.
Appeal brought on 15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri
S.p.A against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
European Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli
Murri SpA and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                        (Case C-399/99 P)
                          (2000/C 20/17)
                                                                        Action brought on 18 October 1999 by the Italian
An appeal against the order made on 4 August 1999 by the                Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ties
Communities in Case T-106/98 between Fratelli Murri SpA
and Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                        (Case C-400/99)
15 October 1999 by Fratelli Murri SpA, represented by
Karl-Gustav von Luschka, Chieming, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach                                          (2000/C 20/18)
8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 18 October 1999 by the Commission of the
I.    Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in Case        European Communities, represented by Umberto Leanza,
      T-106/98 (1) of 4 August 1999 and order the respondent            assisted by Piero Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an
      to pay the appellant USD 7 923 791 plus 10 % interest as          address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5
      from 25 September 1991;                                           Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
II. Order the respondent to pay the costs.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s letter of 6 August 1999 (1) to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              extent necessary;
Infringement of Community law. The appellant complains that             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the scope of the
second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 232 EC). The period laid down in the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
second paragraph of Article 175 is not eliminatory in regard
to claims for compensation for damage. Article 43 of the EC
Statute of the Court of Justice provides that the period laid           The Italian Republic contests the letter of 6 August 1999 on
down in the second paragraph of Article 175 is to apply only            the following grounds:
‘where appropriate’. The same is true of the wording of the
second paragraph of Article 175 itself, which merely permits,
but does not require, an action for failure to act to be brought        — breach of the principle of legal certainty and the rules on
(‘... the action may be brought ...’). The provision does not                transparency with regard to Regulation No 659/99/EC (2);
establish any connection between non-compliance with the
period for bringing an action for failure to act and loss or            — breach of the right to be heard and rights of the defence and
limitation of the right to bring a claim for damages.                        infringement of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 659/99/EC;