EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007CN0511

Case C-511/07: Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

OJ C 22, 26.1.2008, p. 33–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.1.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/33


Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-511/07)

(2008/C 22/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and U. Wölker, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by failing to communicate the information required under Article 3(1)(f) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), in conjunction with Articles 2 and 4(1)(b) and (d) of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission accuses the defendant of not fully implementing the obligations contained in Decision No 280/2004/EC, read in conjunction with Decision No 2005/166/EC. First, the defendant has failed to provide in its annual report the information relating to the methods and to the types of activity data and emissions factors used in the Community's principal sources. Second, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not communicated to the Commission a general uncertainty assessment affecting the elements of the Luxembourg national inventory report.


(1)  OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57.


Top