Case C-271/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Techniko Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE) and Others v Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis, Ipourgos Metaforon kai Epikinonion, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon (Air transport — Regulation No 2042/2003 — Technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation — Continuing airworthiness of aircraft — Approval of members of staff involved in tasks of inspection — Qualifications required)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, civil aviation, interpretation of the law, professional qualifications, roadworthiness tests, technical standard








C_2013009EN.01001602.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/16





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Techniko Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE) and Others v Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis, Ipourgos Metaforon kai Epikinonion, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon
(Case C-271/11) (1)

(Air transport - Regulation No 2042/2003 - Technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation - Continuing airworthiness of aircraft - Approval of members of staff involved in tasks of inspection - Qualifications required)
2013/C 9/25
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Techniko Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE), Sillogos Ellinon Diplomatouchon Aeronafpigon Michanikon (SEA), Alexandros Tsiapas, Antonios Ikonomopoulos, Apostolos Batategas, Vasilios Kouloukis, Georgios Ikonomopoulos, Ilias Iliadis, Ioannis Tertigkas, Panellinios Sillogos Aerolimenikon Ipiresias Politikis Aeroporias, Eleni Theodoridou, Ioannis Karnesiotis, Alexandra Efthimiou, Eleni Saatsaki

Defendants: Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis, Ipourgos Metaforon kai Epikinonion, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks (OJ 2003 L 135, p. 1) — Compatibility of national legislation dividing the task of inspecting aircraft among four categories of inspectors (Airworthiness and Avionics Inspectors, Flight Operations Inspectors, Cabin Safety Inspectors and Licensing Inspectors)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2 and provision M.B.902 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks must be interpreted as meaning that it is open to the Member States, when adopting measures to complement the implementation of that regulation, to distribute, within the competent authority provided for by provision M.B.902, the tasks of inspection of aircraft airworthiness among a number of specialised categories of inspectors.










2.


Provision M.B.902(b), point 1, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that any individual who is responsible for inspecting any aspect whatsoever of the airworthiness of aircraft must have five years experience covering all aspects involved in ensuring the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, and those aspects alone.










3.


Provision M.B.902(b), point 1, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may determine the circumstances in which the experience of at least five years in continuing airworthiness which must be possessed by the staff responsible for reviewing aircraft airworthiness has been acquired. In particular, Member States may choose to take into account experience acquired by work within an aircraft maintenance workshop, to recognise experience acquired during workplace-based practical training during aeronautical studies or also experience linked to having performed the duties of an airworthiness inspector in the past.










4.


Provision M.B.902(b) of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as not making any distinction between holders of an aircraft maintenance licence, within the meaning of Annex III to that regulation, headed ‘Part-66’, and holders of a higher education degree.










5.


Provision M.B.902(b) of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that only those individuals who have first undergone all the education and training required by that provision and whose knowledge and competencies on the conclusion of such training programmes have been subject to appraisal may perform the duties of inspectors of the airworthiness of aircraft.










6.


Provision M.B.902(b), point 4, of Annex I to Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that only those individuals who have previously occupied a position with appropriate responsibilities, demonstrating both their capacity to carry out all the necessary technical controls and also the capacity to assess whether or not the results of those controls permit the issue of documents certifying the airworthiness of the inspected aircraft may perform the duties of inspectors of the airworthiness of aircraft.










7.


Regulation No 2042/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of Member States are under no obligation to provide that the individuals who were performing the duties of inspecting aircraft airworthiness at the date when that regulation entered into force are to continue, automatically and without any selection procedure, to perform such duties.






(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.