CELEX: C2003/251/16
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-375/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

C 251/8               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
—     Infringement/misapplication of Article 8(2) of Regulation        Appeal brought on 10 September 2003 by Rafael Pérez
      No 729/70 since there was an error as to the facts in so         Escolar against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by
      far as misassessment of irregularities or negligence is          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      concerned;                                                       (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 requirement
      since there is an insufficient statement of reasons                                      (Case C-379/03 P)
      (Article 253 EC).
                                                                                                (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
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission                   European Communities on 10 September 2003 by Rafael
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                    Pérez Escolar represented by Fernando Moreno Pardo.
                         of Luxembourg
                        (Case C-375/03)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/16)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                    —     Accept the application, its copies and annexes, allow the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          present appeal subject to the relevant procedure and set
Communities on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of                         aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
the European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as                  2003, by declaring admissible the action for failure to act
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            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-
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       ted by the appellant's representatives on 23 February
the Court should:                                                            1999 on the State aid granted by the Banco Español de
                                                                             Credito S.A. and Banco Santander S.A., had failed to act;
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            —     Alternatively, in the event that the Court does not con-
     the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside                    sider it appropriate to hear and determine the case itself,
     inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles                 the Court should refer the case back to the Court of First
     circulating in the Community (1) and, in any event, by                  Instance in order for it to hear and determine the sub-
     failing to communicate them to the Commission,                          stance of the case;
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;
                                                                       —     In any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities to pay all the costs arising from the pro-
2.   order Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                      ceedings both at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas and main arguments
The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired
on 10 August 2002.
                                                                       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
(1) OJ L 203 of 10.08.2000, p. 1.                                      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