Appeal brought on 30 May 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Republic of Latvia v European Commission

(Case C-267/11 P)

2011/C 226/32

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and I. Rubene)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The single ground of appeal is based on a failure to respect the three-month time-limit laid down in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC. (1)

The Commission considers that, in its analysis, the General Court treated the first and second sentences of Article 9(3) as one and, consequently, that its interpretation is not in line with the objectives laid down in that paragraph.

That interpretation of Article 9(3) of the directive is contrary to the interpretation which the General Court adopted in another case, in which it rightly considered that the second sentence of Article 9(3) constituted a separate legal basis.

In its interpretation of Article 9(3) of the directive, the Commission relies on the literal wording of the provision, which is fully in line with the objective pursued by that provision. Consequently, if the Commission rejects the national allocation plan notified by a Member State, the latter will be required to amend that plan taking account of the Commission's objections and will not be able to execute the plan until the Commission has approved the amendments, for which there is no time-limit.

The Commission notes that the contested decision was a decision on the amendments to the national allocation plan and not on the notified national allocation plan itself.

However, given that the General Court did not consider that the second sentence of Article 9(3) of the directive established a different procedure, it found itself required to consider the notified amendments as notification of a new national allocation plan and, as a result, required to apply the three-month time-limit incorrectly.

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.