Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:643
Date: 2010-10-28
Language of the case: Maltese
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services;Transport
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Malta

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and of fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the heads of claim to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on an objection (see Case C‑412/04 Commission v Italy [2008] ECR I‑619, paragraph 103, and Case C‑211/08 Commission v Spain [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 32 and case-law cited). 17 In the present case, it is quite clear both from the wording of the reasoned opinion and from the form of order sought in the Commission’s application that the failure of the Republic of Malta to fulfil obligations arising under Regulation No 3577/92, alleged by the Commission, consists in having signed the contract at issue on 16 April 2004. 18 It follows that the contention that the Republic of Malta was not in compliance with its obligations under that regulation as from 1 May 2004 does not correspond to the form of order sought in the application. 19 Consequently, after examining its merits, the Court cannot adjudicate on such a contention without ruling ultra petita. 20 As regards the subject-matter of the infringement as set out in the Commission’s application, it must be observed that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, Regulation No 3577/92 was applicable to the Republic of Malta, as the Commission acknowledges, only as from 1 May 2004, the date of the accession of that State to the European Union (see, by analogy, Case C-168/08 Hadadi [2009] ECR I‑6871, paragraph 26). 21 In those circumstances, as the Advocate General stated at point 57 of her Opinion, the Commission’s action could succeed only if Regulation No 3577/92 nevertheless required the Republic of Malta to comply with certain obligations before that date. In the context of the present case, such obligations would require, in particular, that the Member States refrain from concluding a public service contract in a manner inconsistent with Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation No 3577/92 during the period before which that regulation was applicable to them. 22 It is, however, clear that the Commission in no way based the pleas put forward in support of its action on the possible existence of such obligations. On the contrary, as observed at paragraph 15 above, it stated, both in its reply and at the hearing, that it was from 1 May 2004, the date on which Regulation No 3577/92 entered into force in respect of the Republic of Malta because of its accession to the European Union, that that Member State was not, in the Commission’s view, in compliance with its obligations under that regulation. 23 In the light of the foregoing, and without there being any need to rule on the alternative pleas of the Republic of Malta in its defence, the Commission’s action must be dismissed. Costs 24 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Republic of Malta applied for costs and the Commission has been unsuccessful, the Commission must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Maltese.