Order — ECLI:EU:T:2008:12
Date: 2008-01-22
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Transport
Concepts: General;Applications by natural or legal persons;Right to a judicial remedy
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Austria

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 21 July 2004 by EFKON AG against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case T-298/04) (Language of the case: German) An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 July 2004 by EFKON AG, Graz-Andritz (Austria), represented by Georg Zanger, lawyer. The applicant claims that the Court should: - annul Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004; 1 - in the alternative, annul Article 2(1)(a), (b) and (c) and Articles 3 and 6 of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004; - in the alternative, allow the technology used by the applicant (active infra-red) in the introduction of electronic road toll systems; - order the defendants to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant seeks the annulment of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, arguing that, contrary to the requirement that legal measures be technologically neutral, it mandatorily prescribes specific technologies and thereby creates a market regime in favour of the technologies specified in the directive, infringing the principle of competition in the Community. The applicant complains that, with its technology (bi-directional high-speed active infra-red communication technology), it is excluded from the market for road toll systems. The applicant further argues that the directive does not achieve its purpose, namely inter-operability between electronic road toll systems in the Member States, and at the same time hinders cooperation between the Member States, constituting an infringement of the subsidiarity principle. The applicant was not able to participate in the law-making process, thereby infringing its right to a fair hearing, and was discriminated against by the legal measure in relation to the microwave industry. The market regime created by the European legislature adversely affects the applicant in the exercise of its basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty. ____________ 1 - Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community