Case C-49/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic Cruises and other companies against the order made on 12 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-201/99 Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), Greece, action for annulment (EU), carriage of passengers, freedom to provide services, maritime transport

C 108/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

law the interests underlying the Ministerial orders. The
Commission’s claim that Article 21(3) may be understood
as conferring a duty on it to act by way of decision as if
its role as ‘guardian of the treaties’, together with the
overriding interests of Community law, required such
a solution, makes no sense whatever. In fact,
if the
Commission had reason to believe that the Portuguese
Republic infringed a particular duty to inform, the proper
procedure, and the only one in this case, was to bring
infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC.

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.

Action brought on 2 February 2001 by Commission of
the European Communities against Italian Republic

(Case C-46/01)

(2001/C 108/10)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hans Støvlbaek and Roberto Amorosi, acting
as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to draw up and forward to
the Commission the appropriate plans, outlines and
summary inventories necessary to comply with Articles
11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 Sep-
tember 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
the
nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PC13/PCT),
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
those provisions of the directive;and

— order the Italian Republic.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian authorities should have taken steps to communicate
to the Commission the various plans, outlines and summary
inventories, provided for by Articles 11 and 4(1) of the
directive referred to in the Commission’s application, by
16 September 1999. To date, it has not yet done so.

(1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.

Appeal brought on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic
Cruises and other companies against the order made on
12 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-201/99 Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-49/01 P)

(2001/C 108/11)

An appeal against the order made on 12 December 2000 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-201/99 Royal Olympic
Cruises and Others v Council of the European Union and
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic Cruises and other
companies, represented by Professor N. Skandamis, of the
Athens Bar, and A. Potamianos of the Piraeus Bar.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of

12 December 2000;

— refer back to the Court of First Instance for judgment
the action for damages brought by the appellants on
9 September 1999;

— order the Council of

the European Union and the

European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

Inadequate reasoning: the dismissal of the action for
damages as clearly unfounded denied the applicants
their procedural right to put forward and to develop
sufficiently their arguments concerning a case which is of
major importance and, in many respects, novel for the
case-law.

2. Misinterpretation of

the condition requiring a direct

causal link.