Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 118/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21.4.2001

**Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Italian Republic** 3. The contested decision is also invalid on the following
**against Commission of the European Communities** grounds:

failure to define the relevant market; misuse of powers
**(Case C-102/01)**
by misrepresentation of the facts; infringement of the
directive on postal services; infringement and erroneous
application of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty; misuse of
powers in that the decision is general and indeterminate.
(2001/C 118/32)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ( [1] ) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
Communities on 1 March 2001 by the Italian Republic, the internal market of Community postal services and the
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).
Ivo M. Braguglia and Francesca Quadri, avvocati dello Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 21 December 2000, notified to the
Italian Government on 22 December 2000;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

**Action brought on 2 March 2001 by the Commission of**
**the European Communities against the Federal Republic**
**of Germany**

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

**(Case C-103/01)**
1. The Italian Government claims that the Commission
committed a manifest error when choosing the proper
legal basis for assessing whether the national rules at issue
were compatible with Community law and that that (2001/C 118/33)
erroneous legal basis has led in the present case to a
manifest breach of essential procedural requirements and
‘détournement de procédure’ (abuse of process), inasmuch
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
as a proceeding pursuant to Article 86(3) of the Treaty
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communiwas instituted and a decision adopted, instead of infringeties on 2 March 2001 by the Commission of the European
ment proceedings under Article 226 of the Treaty for
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
failure to implement correctly Directive 97/76/EC( [1] ) on
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
postal services.
the office of Carlos Go´mez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.

By acting in that way, the Commission has also infringed
Article 86(3) of the Treaty, which is not applicable in the
present case, as well as Article 226 of the Treaty for The applicant claims that the Court should:
failure to apply the latter.

(1) declare that, by including in the legislation applicable
The decision does not contain the least statement of to individual Länder certain additional requirements
reasons which led the Commission to follow the pro- concerning personal protective equipment for fire brigcedure under Article 86, so that it is vitiated on the ades which corresponds to the requirements of Directive
ground of inadequate statement of reasons. 89/686/EEC( [1] ) and bears the EC mark, the Federal
Republic of Germany has infringed Articles 1 and 4 of
that directive;
2. The decision is vitiated for breach of the rights of the
defence in that the final decision is vitiated with regard to
the letter of formal notice. (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

21.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 118/21

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ (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
In the Commission’s view, the term ‘armed forces or [those or protective measures within the meaning of Article 24
responsible for] the maintenance of law and order’, to whose of the Brussels Convention?
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 **Action brought on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of**
Land authority. **the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of**
**Luxembourg**

**(Case C-107/01)**
( [1] ) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

(2001/C 118/35)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities 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.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der** The applicant claims that the Court should:
**Nederlanden by order of 2 March 2001 in the case of**
**A.T. van der Plas en W.H. Guis** — Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
**(Case C-105/01)**
Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending
Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of
(2001/C 118/34) road haulage operator and road passenger transport
operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of
European Communities by order of 2 March 2001 by the
establishment in national and international transport
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netheroperations,( [1] ) or, in any event, by failing to communicate
lands), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 March
such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T. van der Plas
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
en W.H. Guis on the following questions: directive; and

—
(1) On a proper construction of the first part of, and of Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
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 _Pleas in law and main arguments_
Netherlands which holds the shares in a company
established in France, in order to obtain his collaboration The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
in the calling of a general meeting and to effect certain of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
decisions concerning the company established in France, Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
relate to what is laid down in the abovementioned to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
provisions of the Convention, on the understanding that law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and
the French court must be considered to have exclusive forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. That period,
jurisdiction as to those claims? which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 98/76/EC,
expired on 1 October 1999 without the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
(2) If the answer to the first question is to be in the
provisions.
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 ( [1] ) OJ 1998 L 227, p. 17.
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?