CELEX: C2001/118/34
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: 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

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 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.
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
                         (Case C-105/01)                                      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
                         (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 Nether-                       operations, (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
(2) If the answer to the first question is to be in the                 of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
      affirmative, does the jurisdiction of a court, on the basis       provisions.
      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?