# C_2014045EN.01004001.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/40

---

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-659/13)

2014/C 45/70

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of the contested regulation and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of the contested regulation and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof
  In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40 in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof

1

In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40 in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 290 TFEU
  In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 290 TFEU

In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU
  In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.

---

(1)  Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).

1

---