Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CN0390

Case C-390/08: Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

IO C 285, 8.11.2008, p. 27–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.11.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/27


Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-390/08)

(2008/C 285/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

Declare that by failing to communicate the information required by Article 3(2) 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), read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Commission Decision No 166/2005/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC, read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Decision No 166/2005/EC;

Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC, read in combination with Decision No 166/2005/EC, the Member States were required to communicate to the Commission, by 15 March 2005 and every two years thereafter information on the national measures adopted to limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement the Kyoto Protocol.

At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not communicated the measures in question to the Commission.


(1)  OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57.


Top