CELEX: C2001/150/20
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-92/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of G. Stilianakis against the Greek State

19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Appeal brought on 26 February 2001 by the French
                                                                          Republic against the judgment delivered on 14 December
—     Breach of the principle of Community law relating to the            2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
      concept of set-off between claims: the distinction drawn            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      by the Court of First Instance between ‘actual payment’             in Case T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express
      and payment by means of set-off does not exist in law,              (UFEX), DHL International, Federal Express International
      since those two methods of payment have the same legal              (France), CRIE and the Commission of the European
      and accounting consequences.                                        Communities, supported by the French Republic, Chrono-
                                                                                                post SA and La Poste
—     Breach of the principle of the effectiveness of Community
      law: the Court of First Instance was wrong in concentrat-
      ing on the proper carrying out of the activities relating to
      the payments made by means of set-off without dwelling                                       (Case C-93/01 P)
      on the need to protect the Communities’ financial
      interests. The Court of First Instance did not explain,
      moreover, why set-off is more damaging, in respect of                                        (2001/C 150/21)
      the carrying out of the activities at issue, than enforced
      recovery. By stating that the non-payment of the sums
      intended for the activities at issue jeopardised the carrying       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December
      out of those activities, the Court of First Instance distorted      2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
      the facts or failed, at least, to state the reasons for its         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      observations whereas, indeed, it stated that the CEMR               T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX), DHL
      was not insolvent.                                                  International, Federal Express International (France), CRIE and
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, supported by
—     Breach of the principles of sound financial management              the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste, was brought
      and the sound administration of justice: the Court of First         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      Instance failed to take account of the main purpose of              26 February 2001 by the French Republic, represented by
      set-off, which is economy of procedure and the saving of            G. de Bergues and F. Million, acting as Agents, with an address
      costs, not only in the context of mutual financial                  for service in Luxembourg.
      obligations, but also in the context of the sound adminis-
      tration of justice.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Second Chamber) by                       —     order the UFEX to pay the costs incurred in the proceed-
judgment of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of                        ings before the Court of Justice and make a fresh ruling
             G. Stilianakis against the Greek State                             in relation to the costs incurred in the proceedings before
                                                                                the Court of First Instance.
                           (Case C-92/01)
                          (2001/C 150/20)
                                                                          Pleas and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Monomeles Dioiki-
tiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Administrative Court of First                  —     Misinterpretation of ‘normal market conditions’: The
Instance, Heraklion), Second Chamber, of 31 October 2000,                       Court of First Instance erred in holding that when the
received at the Court Registry on 22 February 2001, for a                       Commission carried out an analysis of the economic
preliminary ruling in the case of G. Stilianakis against the                    factors on the basis of which it was considered possible
Greek State on the following question:                                          to assess whether remuneration was ‘normal’, it should
                                                                                have taken into account the implications for La Poste’s
Are Articles 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty and Article 3(1) of                     costs — hence on the remuneration requested from its
Council Regulation No 2408/92 (1) to be interpreted as                          subsidiary — of its structural situation (its reserved
prohibiting a Member State from imposing a differentiated                       sector).
fiscal charge on domestic and intra-Community flights with
the direct result that an amount of tax is charged on intra-
Community flights double that on flights within the Member                      The approach espoused by the Court of First Instance has
State?                                                                          no basis in reality, since a private operator with no
                                                                                reserved activities would never wish to equip itself with a
                                                                                network like the La Poste network, which was developed
(1) OJ L 240 of 24.8.1992, p. 8.                                                solely to meet the needs of the reserved sector. Moreover,
                                                                                no private operator desires access to the La Poste network,
                                                                                despite the allegedly cheaper rates offered.