Case C-274/01: Information Action brought on 12 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, carriage of passengers, right of establishment, road transport

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/15

Information Action brought on 12 July 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities against the
Kingdom of Belgium

Appeal brought on 13 July 2001 by European Parliament
against the judgment delivered on 3 May 2001 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-99/00 between Ignacio
Samper and European Parliament

(Case C-274/01)

(2001/C 245/27)

(Case C-277/01 P)

(2001/C 245/28)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 July
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. 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), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive; and

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 May 2001 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-99/00 between Ignacio
Samper and European Parliament was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July
2001 by European Parliament, represented by H. Von Herzen
and D. Moor, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

— give a final decision on the dispute by dismissing
the action for annulment brought by Mr Samper as
unfounded;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance for it to adjudicate anew on the action for
annulment brought by Mr Samper;

2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas and main arguments

Article 2(1) of the directive in question provides that Member
States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Direc-
tive no later than 1 October 1999 and are forthwith to inform
the Commission thereof.

The Parliament claims that the Court of First Instance distorted
the clear sense of the evidence and overstepped the limits of
judicial review.

Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence:

The necessary measures have not yet been adopted by Belgium.

(1) OJ 1998 L 277, p. 17.

The Court of First Instance wrongly found, in paragraph 40 of
the judgment, that, for 1997, the ‘decisive’ criterion should be,
according to the decision of the appointing authority, the level
of responsibility deployed, personal investment made and the
consistency of effort vis-à-vis his responsibilities. The decision
in question does not, however, make mention of any factors
other than those appearing in the staff reports and refers to a
comparison between the various duties only to justify its
decision to depart from the Promotions Committee’s pro-
posals.