Avis juridique important

61990O0066

European Court reports 1991 Page I-02723

Parties

In Case C-66/90,

Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV and PTT Post BV, represented by M.C.E.J. Bronckers and P.V.F. Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 8 Rue Zithe,

applicants,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by J.H.J. Bourgeois, Principal Legal Adviser, B. Jansen and B.J. Drijber, members of its Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Guido Berardis, a member of the Commission' s Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

supported by

Nederlandse Vereniging van Internationale Koeriers- en Expresbedrijven and Nationale Organisatie voor het Beroepsgoederenvervoer Wegtransport, associations governed by Netherlands law, represented by M.J. Geus, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14A Rue des Bains,

European Express Organization, an association governed by French law, represented by R. Wojtek, of the Hamburg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Palinkas, 38 Rue Paul Wilwertz,

Association of European Express Carriers, an association governed by Belgian law, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14A Rue des Bains,

interveners,

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 90/16/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning the provision in the Netherlands of express delivery services (Official Journal 1990 L 10, p. 47),

THE COURT,

composed of: O. Due, President, G.F. Mancini, T.F. O' Higgins, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias and M. Díez de Velasco (Presidents of Chambers), Sir Gordon Slynn, C.N. Kakouris, R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, F. Grévisse, M. Zuleeg and P.J.G. Kapteyn, Judges,

Advocate General: W. Van Gerven,

Registrar: J.-G. Giraud,

after hearing the views of the Advocate General,

makes the following

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 March 1990, Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV and PTT Bost BV brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the annulment of Commission Decision 90/16/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning the provision in the Netherlands of express delivery services.

2 According to Article 3(1)(c) of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Official Journal 1989 L 319, p. 1), the Court of First Instance is to exercise at first instance the jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Justice by the Treaties establishing the Communities and by the acts adopted in implementation thereof in actions brought against an institution of the Communities by natural or legal persons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty relating to the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings.

3 According to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, where the Court of Justice finds that an action falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, it is to refer that action to the latter, whereupon that court may not decline jurisdiction.

4 Since the proceedings brought in Case C-66/90 have been instituted against a Community institution by a legal person, under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, and concern the implementation of the rules of competition applicable to undertakings, which are set out in Section 1 of Chapter 1 of Title I in Part 3 of the EEC Treaty, the Court is required, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, to hold that the proceedings fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and to refer the case to that court.

5 However, it should be noted that, by application lodged at the Court Registry on 2 March 1990, the Kingdom of the Netherlands had, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, also sought the annulment of Decision 90/16, cited above (Case C-48/90 Netherlands v Commission).

6 Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, the Court decided not to stay the proceedings instituted before it in Case C-48/90.

Operative part

On those grounds,

hereby orders as follows:

2. The costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 4 June 1991.