# C_2020443EN.01002401.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/24

---

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — UPTR v Parliament and Council

(Case T-634/20)

(2020/C 443/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (Herstal, Belgium) (represented by: F. Vanden Bogaerde, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment admissible;

| — | annul Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision infringes Article 3(3) TEU and the principle of the free movement of services.
  In the field of road transport, and more specifically cabotage, efforts toward progressive liberalisation should be made. By the contested provision of Regulation 2020/1055, the level of liberalisation already achieved is scaled back given that that provision contains a far-reaching restriction which is especially disadvantageous to those carriers that are members of the applicant. The aim of preventing abuse in cabotage, which serves as the basis for the contested provision, is already covered by other EU legislative measures (Mobility Package). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision infringes Article 3(3) TEU and the principle of the free movement of services.

In the field of road transport, and more specifically cabotage, efforts toward progressive liberalisation should be made. By the contested provision of Regulation 2020/1055, the level of liberalisation already achieved is scaled back given that that provision contains a far-reaching restriction which is especially disadvantageous to those carriers that are members of the applicant. The aim of preventing abuse in cabotage, which serves as the basis for the contested provision, is already covered by other EU legislative measures (Mobility Package).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
  Prior to the adoption of the regulation containing the contested provision, there was no updating of the impact assessment conducted in respect of the Commission proposal for that regulation. The European Parliament and the Council, however, made significant amendments to the Commission’s proposal and it was therefore appropriate and necessary to update that impact assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Prior to the adoption of the regulation containing the contested provision, there was no updating of the impact assessment conducted in respect of the Commission proposal for that regulation. The European Parliament and the Council, however, made significant amendments to the Commission’s proposal and it was therefore appropriate and necessary to update that impact assessment.

---