Case C-105/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of 2 March 2001 in the case of A.T. van der Plas en W.H. Guis
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Netherlands, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, managing director, type of business

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/21

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the Commission’s view, the term ‘armed forces or [those
responsible for] the maintenance of law and order’, to whose
protective equipment the directive, pursuant to the second
indent of Article 1(4) and Annex I thereof, is not applicable, is
a concept of Community law, and is not to be defined by
reference to the legislation of the Member States. Fire brigades
do not form part of the ‘armed forces or [those responsible
for] the maintenance of law and order’ within the meaning of
the directive, even if, in a Member State, they are under the
control of the Minister of Defence or, as in Germany, that of a
Land authority.

(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by order of 2 March 2001 in the case of
A.T. van der Plas en W.H. Guis

(Case C-105/01)

(2001/C 118/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 2 March 2001 by the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Nether-
lands), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 March
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T. van der Plas
en W.H. Guis on the following questions:

(1) On a proper construction of the first part of, and of
paragraph (2) of, Article 16, do the abovementioned
claims in 1(a) to (e), brought against a director, resident
in the Netherlands, of a company established in the
Netherlands which holds the shares in a company
established in France, in order to obtain his collaboration
in the calling of a general meeting and to effect certain
decisions concerning the company established in France,
relate to what is laid down in the abovementioned
provisions of the Convention, on the understanding that
the French court must be considered to have exclusive
jurisdiction as to those claims?

(2)

If
the answer to the first question is to be in the
affirmative, does the jurisdiction of a court, on the basis
of the first part of, and paragraph (2) of, Article 16 of
the Brussels Convention, preclude a court of another
contracting state from having jurisdiction on the basis of
Article 24 of the Brussels Convention to adopt provisional
or protective measures provided for by law?

(3)

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative
and the second in the negative, must
the measures
requested in these proceedings be regarded as provisional
or protective measures within the meaning of Article 24
of the Brussels Convention?

Action brought on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-107/01)

(2001/C 118/35)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending
Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of
road haulage operator and road passenger transport
operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of
establishment
in national and international transport
operations, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate
such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive; and

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and
forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. That period,
which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 98/76/EC,
expired on 1 October 1999 without
the Grand Duchy
into force the necessary
of Luxembourg having brought
provisions.

(1) OJ 1998 L 227, p. 17.