Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:815
Date: 2012-12-19
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Pollution
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based and that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the form of order sought to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on a claim (see Commission v Portugal, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). 52 In the present case, the Commission does not specify, either in the form of order sought in the application or in the grounds thereof, the years for which the breach of obligations is alleged. It merely states that the Italian Republic exceeded the limit values applicable to concentrations of PM10 ‘for a number of consecutive years’. It alleges that there is a current breach of obligations and that the Court’s decision must apply to the present and not the past, without specifying the period referred to. 53 In those circumstances, it must be stated that the absence of an indispensable element from the content of the application initiating proceedings, such as the period during which the Italian Republic, according to the Commission’s assertions, has infringed European Union law, does not satisfy the requirements of coherence, clarity and precision (see, to that effect, Commission v Portugal, paragraph 47). 54 In addition, the Commission does not set out the exact period concerned by the alleged breach of obligations and fails, moreover, to provide pertinent evidence while laconically stating that it has no legal interest in this case in seeking from the Court a ruling on past facts given that it gains No advantage from a judgment making a finding in relation to a past situation. Therefore, the Commission not only manifestly fails to have regard to the obligations, both for the Court and for itself, resulting from the case-law cited at paragraphs 50 and 51 of this judgment, but also fails to put the Court in a position to rule on these infringement proceedings. 55 It should however be noted that the verification of the annual reports submitted by the Italian Republic relating to the years 2005 to 2007 showed that the limit values applicable to concentrations of PM10 had been exceeded in a number of zones and agglomerations. On the basis of these reports, the Commission considered that the Italian Republic had not complied with the obligations laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 in that, in 55 Italian zones and agglomerations, listed in the annex to the letter of formal notice, the daily and/or annual limit values applicable to concentrations of PM10 had been exceeded during the years 2006 and 2007. 56 It can be deduced from that information that the breach of the obligations imposed by Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30, on any view, covers the period from 2006 to 2007 and concerns 55 Italian zones and agglomerations. 57 In those circumstances, these infringement proceedings, within the limits thus defined, may be declared admissible. On the other hand, in so far as it relates to 2005 and the period following 2007, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible. 58 In relation to the merits of this action, it should be noted that the Italian Republic admits, in its observations, that the limit values applicable to concentrations of PM10 in ambient air were exceeded within the limits stated at paragraph 56 of this judgment. 59 The Italian Republic adds that those limit values could not be complied with within the time-limit laid down by Directive 1999/30 for at least five reasons, listed at paragraph 41 of this judgment. In those circumstances, ensuring compliance with those limit values would have involved the adoption of drastic economic and social measures and the infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms such as the free movement of goods and persons, private economic initiative and the right of citizens to public utility services. 60 In that regard, it should be noted that, unless a directive has been amended by the European Union legislature for the purpose of extending the time-limits prescribed for implementation, the Member States are required to comply with the time-limits originally laid down. 61 Furthermore, it must be stated that the Italian Republic does not claim to have requested, in particular, application of Article 5(4) of Directive 1999/30, which concerns the situation where the limit values applicable to concentrations of PM10 in ambient air are exceeded due to natural events that result in concentrations significantly in excess of normal background levels from natural sources. 62 The procedure provided for in Article 258 TFEU presupposes an objective finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the FEU Treaty or secondary legislation (see Case 301/81 Commission v Belgium [1983] ECR 467, paragraph 8, and Case C‑297/08 Commission v Italy [2010] ECR I‑1749, paragraph 81). 63 Where such a finding has been made, as in the present case, it is irrelevant whether the failure to fulfil obligations is the result of intention or negligence on the part of the Member State responsible, or of technical difficulties encountered by it (Case C‑71/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I‑5991, paragraph 15, and Commission v Italy, paragraph 82). 64 In any event, a Member State which encounters temporarily insuperable difficulties preventing it from complying with its obligations under European Union law may plead force majeure only for the period necessary in order to resolve those difficulties (see, to that effect, Case C‑1/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I‑9989, paragraph 131). 65 However, in the present case, the arguments put forward by the Italian Republic are too general and vague to be able to constitute a case of force majeure justifying non-compliance with the limit values applicable to concentrations of PM10 in the 55 Italian zones and agglomerations mentioned by the Commission. 66 Consequently, the action should be upheld within the limits referred to at paragraph 56 of this judgment. 67 Having regard to the preceding considerations, it must be held that, by having failed to ensure that, for the years 2006 and 2007, concentrations of PM10 in ambient air did not exceed the limit values set in Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 in the 55 Italian zones and agglomerations referred to in the Commission’s letter of formal notice of 2 February 2009, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision. Costs 68 Under Article 138(1) 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. Under the first sentence of Article 138(3), the parties are to bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. 69 In the present case, account should be taken of the fact that the Commission’s complaint in respect of non-compliance with the obligations resulting from Article 5 of Directive 1999/30, now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50, has been declared inadmissible so far as concerns the year 2005 and the period following 2007. 70 Accordingly, the Commission and the Italian Republic should be ordered to bear their own costs. On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by having failed to ensure that, for the years 2006 and 2007, concentrations of PM10 in ambient air did not exceed the limit values set in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air in the 55 Italian zones and agglomerations referred to in the European Commission’s letter of formal notice of 2 February 2009, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders the European Commission and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Italian.