CELEX: C2004/059/11
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-525/03: Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 59/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
Court taken into account that neither the former rules nor the            Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
new Regulations include a reference to audits. The audit                  of the European Communities against G. & E. Gianniotis
proposed by ECHO had a discriminatory character in so far as                         EPE, trading as ‘Nosokomio Agia Eleni’
there was no justification given for undertaking such an audit
once the German Foreign Office had confirmed the legal status
of IH as a charitable organisation.                                                                (Case C-524/03)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 59/10)
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003, p. 21.
(2) of the Council, of 20 June 1996, concerning humanitarian aid (OJ
    L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 1).
                                                                          An action against G. &. E. Gianniotis EPE, trading as ‘Nosoko-
                                                                          mio Agia Eleni’ was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                          the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Dimitri Triandafilou of its Legal Service, assisted by Nicolao
                                                                          Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Biotrast AE, Anoni-
               mi Eteria Tekhnologion Aikhmis                             The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant:
                                                                          (a)   to pay the amount of EUR 236 977,73, comprising the
                          (Case C-523/03)
                                                                                principal sum of EUR 212 010,17 and daily interest of
                                                                                EUR 24 697,76 from the date of each debit note until
                           (2004/C 59/09)                                       31 October 2003;
                                                                          (b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 42,16 per day as
                                                                                from 31 October 2003 until payment in full of the debt;
An action against Biotrast AE, Anonomi Eteria Tekhnologion
Aikhmis, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                   (c)   to pay the costs.
European Communities on 15 December 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris
Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, and by Nikolaos Koroyian-
nakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Luxembourg. The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (a)   Liability to repay the amount unduly paid by the Com-
                                                                                mission;
order the defendant:
                                                                          (b) Date on which interest became payable.
(a)   to pay the amount of EUR 730 726,81, representing a
      capital sum of EUR 661 838,82 and daily interest of EUR
      68 887,99, from the date on which the debit note fell
      due with interest at 4,77 % until 31.12.2002 and 6,77 %
      from 11.2003;
(b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 122,75 per day
      from 31.10.2003 until the debt is repaid in full;                   Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(c)   to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (Case C-525/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 59/11)
(a)   There is an obligation to repay the amount unduly paid
      by the Commission.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(b) The date on which interest became payable.                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Klaus Wiedner and Claudio Loggi, acting as
                                                                          Agents.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/7
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                State Forest Department of two-way radio equipment for
                                                                           communication with firefighting aircraft and for the acqui-
—      Declare that, by adopting Article 1, second subparagraph            sition and/or implementation, again on behalf of that Depart-
       and first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 2 of           ment, of air services for fighting forest fires, in the last case
       Order No 3231 of the President of the Council of                    providing, in terms similar to the provision in respect of the
       Ministers of 24 July 2002, which allow for private                  acquisition of firefighting aircraft, that the relevant contracts
       negotiations by way of derogation from the provisions of            may also be entered into in derogation from the legislation
       the Community directives on public supply and service               transposing the Community directives on public contracts
       contracts, and in particular, from the common rules on              and, in particular, Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC.
       advertising and participation laid down by Titles III and
       IV of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) and III and V of Directive
       92/50/EEC (2), for the acquisition of aircraft to combat            The Commission further considers that, in those cases,
       forest fires and for the acquisition of firefighting services       recourse cannot be had to private negotiations and that, in any
       and which similarly allow for such negotiations for the             case, no evidence of the existence of the conditions required
       acquisition of technical and computer equipment and                 for recourse to such negotiations was provided by the Italian
       two-way radios, without any of the lawful conditions for            authorities. In particular, none of the conditions under
       derogation from those common rules being satisfied and,             Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 93/36/EEC and Article 11(2)
       in any event, without ensuring any form of direct                   and (3) of Directive 92/50/EEC is satisfied.
       advertising such as to permit a competitive comparison
       between potential tenderers, the Italian Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/
       36/EEC of 18 June 1992 and Articles 43 and 49 of the                (1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
       EC Treaty;                                                          (2) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Contracts for the supply of aircraft fall within the scope of              Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
Directive 93/36/EEC which governs the award procedure for                  of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
public supply contracts.                                                                                Netherlands
Pursuant to Article 6 of the directive, the contracting auth-                                        (Case C-527/03)
orities are to award supply contracts by the open or restricted
procedures. Recourse to the negotiated procedure is permitted
only in the cases expressly provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3                                        (2004/C 59/12)
of that article. Article 6(3) includes, amongst the cases in
which the negotiated procedure is permitted, that where,
for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by events
unforeseeable by the contracting authorities, and for which
those authorities are not responsible, the time limits laid down           An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
for the competitive procedures with prior publication cannot               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
be observed.                                                               15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,
                                                                           acting as Agents.
The Commission points out that, in the present case, none of
the conditions laid down by Article 6 of Directive 93/36/EEC
for derogation from the provisions of that directive appears to
apply and that, in particular, there do not appear to be reasons           The applicant claims that the Court should:
of urgency such as to permit the contracting authority to avail
itself of the derogation under Article 6(3)(d) of the directive.           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                 and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                 Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
The Commission further points out that the contested order                       of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception
lays down numerous other possibilities for resorting to private                  facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, or,
negotiations, namely for the acquisition of the material                         in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those
necessary to equip the Department of Civil Protection with                       measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
technical and computer systems, for the acquisition by the                       fulfil its obligations under that directive;