EN
15.5.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 173/29
The Republic of Latvia has identified at least five priority pathways (horticulture, secondary introduction and aquariums in respect of plants, and secondary introduction and escape from holding facilities in respect of animals) pursuant to Article 13(1) of that regulation.
However, the Republic of Latvia has established and transmitted to the Commission an action plan for only one out of the five identified priority pathways.
(1)
OJ 2014 L 317, p. 35.
Action brought on 24 March 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Case C-193/23) (2023/C 173/40) Language of the case: Italian Parties Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents) Defendant: Italian Republic Form of order sought The Commission claims that the Court should — declare that, by failing to establish and implement one single action plan or a set of action plans to address the priority pathways of invasive alien species and by failing to transmit it or them to the Commission without delay, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species; (1) — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In a single plea in law, the Commission claims that, by failing to establish and implement one single action plan or a set of action plans to address the priority pathways of invasive alien species and by failing to transmit it or them to the Commission without delay, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.
In particular, on the date of expiry of the time limit laid down in the reasoned opinion, namely 9 April 2022, the defendant had neither established nor implemented one single action plan or a set of action plans to address the priority pathways of invasive alien species pursuant to Article 13(2) of that regulation, nor had it transmitted without delay that plan or set of plans pursuant to Article 13(5) of the regulation.
(1)
OJ 2014 L 317, p. 35.