Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022CN0668

    Case C-668/22: Action brought on 21 October 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

    OJ C 463, 5.12.2022, p. 21–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.12.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 463/21


    Action brought on 21 October 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

    (Case C-668/22)

    (2022/C 463/28)

    Language of the case: Slovak

    Parties

    Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Sasinowska, G. Wilms and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

    Defendant: Slovak Republic

    Form of order sought

    declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to achieve certain results resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 (1) of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009;

    order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, ATS providers are to ensure that ATS units providing air traffic services within the airspace referred to in Article 1(3) of that regulation are capable of providing and operating data link services as defined in Annex II to that regulation. The data services defined in Annex II are: data link initiation capability (DLIC), ATC communication management (ACM) service, ATC clearance and information (ACL) service and ATC microphone control (AMC) service. Contrary to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, the ATS provider entrusted by the Slovak Republic has not ensured that ATS units are capable of providing and operating the data link services defined in Annex II to that regulation. The Slovak Republic, within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the EU Treaty, had not, at the time of the expiry of the time limit in its reasoned opinion, taken the necessary measures to ensure that the ATS provider entrusted by it complies with the requirements of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 29/2009.


    (1)  OJ 2009 L 13, p. 3.


    Top