Case C‑67/12
European Commission
v
Kingdom of Spain
‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy performance of buildings — Articles 3, 7 and 8 — Incomplete transposition’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 16 January 2014
Judicial proceedings — Plea of inadmissibility — Subject-matter — Plea relating to part of the action — Defendant failing to lodge an additional defence within the period laid down — Defendant being out of time for the part of the action not covered by the plea of inadmissibility — Arguments on the substance limited to the part of the action not covered by the plea of inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 40 and 91)
Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Determination of whether the Member State concerned has filed fulfil its obligations — No effect
(Art. 258 TFEU)
Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion
(Art. 258 TFEU)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant
(Art. 258 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c))
Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Different wording of the complaints without amending or extending the subject-matter of the dispute — Lawfulness
(Art. 258 TFEU)
Energy — Energy performance of buildings — Directive 2002/91 — Alternative obligation to undertake regular inspections of boilers or duty to provide users with advice on the heating system — Obligations in respect of new and existing buildings — Member State failing to take, or in any event failing to communicate, the measures necessary in respect of existing buildings — Failure to fulfil obligations
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/91, Art. 8)
Where an action is declared admissible because the plea of inadmissibility is rejected or where a decision on that plea is reserved for the final judgment, there must be an exchange of arguments on the substance of the application at a subsequent stage. It follows from Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 91 thereof, that further examination of the substance can relate only to the part of the action covered by the plea of inadmissibility, in so far as the defendant failed to lodge an additional defence within the period of one month laid down by that Article 40.
Even if a plea of inadmissibility concerning only part of the action is well founded, it cannot lead to dismissal of that action in its entirety and there can therefore be no justification for the defendant’s failure to submit its defence arguments relating to the part of the action not covered by the plea of inadmissibility within the period laid down in Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure.
Therefore, if the defendant takes the view that only part of the action is inadmissible, it must either challenge the admissibility of that part of the action in its defence or, within the period set for responding to the application, raise a plea of partial inadmissibility and submit a statement as to the substance in respect of the part of the action which is not covered by that plea of inadmissibility, failing which the defendant will be precluded from raising that matter.
(see paras 25-28)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 30)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 31)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 41, 42)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 52, 53)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 65, 66, 70-72, 76, operative part)
Case C‑67/12
European Commission
v
Kingdom of Spain
‛Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy performance of buildings — Articles 3, 7 and 8 — Incomplete transposition’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 16 January 2014
Judicial proceedings — Plea of inadmissibility — Subject-matter — Plea relating to part of the action — Defendant failing to lodge an additional defence within the period laid down — Defendant being out of time for the part of the action not covered by the plea of inadmissibility — Arguments on the substance limited to the part of the action not covered by the plea of inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 40 and 91)
Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Determination of whether the Member State concerned has filed fulfil its obligations — No effect
(Art. 258 TFEU)
Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion
(Art. 258 TFEU)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant
(Art. 258 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c))
Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Different wording of the complaints without amending or extending the subject-matter of the dispute — Lawfulness
(Art. 258 TFEU)
Energy — Energy performance of buildings — Directive 2002/91 — Alternative obligation to undertake regular inspections of boilers or duty to provide users with advice on the heating system — Obligations in respect of new and existing buildings — Member State failing to take, or in any event failing to communicate, the measures necessary in respect of existing buildings — Failure to fulfil obligations
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/91, Art. 8)
Where an action is declared admissible because the plea of inadmissibility is rejected or where a decision on that plea is reserved for the final judgment, there must be an exchange of arguments on the substance of the application at a subsequent stage. It follows from Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 91 thereof, that further examination of the substance can relate only to the part of the action covered by the plea of inadmissibility, in so far as the defendant failed to lodge an additional defence within the period of one month laid down by that Article 40.
Even if a plea of inadmissibility concerning only part of the action is well founded, it cannot lead to dismissal of that action in its entirety and there can therefore be no justification for the defendant’s failure to submit its defence arguments relating to the part of the action not covered by the plea of inadmissibility within the period laid down in Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure.
Therefore, if the defendant takes the view that only part of the action is inadmissible, it must either challenge the admissibility of that part of the action in its defence or, within the period set for responding to the application, raise a plea of partial inadmissibility and submit a statement as to the substance in respect of the part of the action which is not covered by that plea of inadmissibility, failing which the defendant will be precluded from raising that matter.
(see paras 25-28)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 30)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 31)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 41, 42)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 52, 53)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 65, 66, 70-72, 76, operative part)