Case C-375/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, commercial vehicle, intra-EU transport, road transport, roadworthiness tests

C 251/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

— Infringement/misapplication of Article 8(2) of Regulation
No 729/70 since there was an error as to the facts in so
far as misassessment of
irregularities or negligence is
concerned;

Appeal brought on 10 September 2003 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01
between Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the
European Communities

— Infringement of an essential procedural

statement of

requirement
reasons

since there is an insufficient
(Article 253 EC).

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

(Case C-379/03 P)

(2003/C 251/17)

An appeal against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01 between
Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 10 September 2003 by Rafael
Pérez Escolar represented by Fernando Moreno Pardo.

(Case C-375/03)

(2003/C 251/16)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
An action against
brought before the Court of
the European
Justice of
Communities on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside
inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles
circulating in the Community (1) and, in any event, by
failing to communicate
them to the Commission,
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

2. order Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired
on 10 August 2002.

(1) OJ L 203 of 10.08.2000, p. 1.

— Accept the application, its copies and annexes, allow the
present appeal subject to the relevant procedure and set
aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
2003, by declaring admissible the action for failure to act
brought before the Court of First Instance, and in the
event that it considers it appropriate, hear and decide the
case itself by declaring that the Commission, by failing to
adopt any decision whatsoever on the complaint submit-
ted by the appellant's representatives on 23 February
1999 on the State aid granted by the Banco Español de
Credito S.A. and Banco Santander S.A., had failed to act;

— Alternatively, in the event that the Court does not con-
sider it appropriate to hear and determine the case itself,
the Court should refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance in order for it to hear and determine the sub-
stance of the case;

— In any event, order the Commission of the European
Communities to pay all the costs arising from the pro-
ceedings both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas and main arguments

The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
applicant did not have locus standi to bring an action for failure
to act against the Commission for not adopting any decision
whatever on the complaint submitted. The Court of First
Instance held that the criteria for locus standi for the purposes
of an action for failure to act under Article 232 EC are the