CELEX: 62008CJ0508
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-28
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2010. # European Commission v Republic of Malta. # Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide maritime transport services - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Articles 1 and 4 - Cabotage services within a Member State - Obligation to conclude public service contracts on a non-discriminatory basis - Conclusion of an exclusive contract, without a prior call for tenders, before the date of accession of a Member State to the European Union. # Case C-508/08.

Case C-508/08
      European Commission
      v
      Republic of Malta
      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide maritime transport services – Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 – Articles 1 and 4 – Cabotage services within a Member State – Obligation to conclude public service contracts on a non-discriminatory basis – Conclusion of an exclusive contract, without a prior call for tenders, before the date of accession of a Member State to
         the European Union)
      
      Summary of the Judgment
      1.        Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Alteration once proceedings have been started
            – Not allowed
      2.        Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Action for a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations
            as a result of conduct before its accession to the European Union – Regulation No 3577/92 – Signature of a public service
            maritime cabotage contract without a prior call for tenders
      (Council Regulation No 3577/92, Arts 1 and 4)
      1.        It is clear from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and from the case-law relating to that
         provision that an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a 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.
      
      When 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 Member State concerned to fulfil obligations arising under Regulation No 3577/92 – applying
         the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) – alleged by the
         Commission, consists in having signed, before that Member State’s accession to the European Union, a public service maritime
         cabotage contract without a prior call for tenders, the contention, in the reply and at the hearing, that that Member State
         had not complied with its obligations under that regulation as from the date of its accession to the European Union does not
         correspond to the form of order sought in the application. Consequently, after examining its merits, the Court cannot adjudicate
         on such a contention without ruling ultra petita.
      
      (see paras 12, 15-19)
      2.        An action for a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil obligations arising under Regulation No 3577/92 – applying
         the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) – as a result
         of signing a public service maritime cabotage contract on 16 April 2004 without a prior call for tenders could succeed only
         if that regulation nevertheless required the Member State to fulfil certain obligations before the date of its accession,
         namely, 1 May 2004. Such obligations would require, in particular, the Member States to 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 that regulation
         was applicable to them.
      
      Since the Commission has in no way based the pleas put forward in support of its action on the possible existence of such
         obligations, its action for failure to fulfil obligations cannot succeed.
      
      (see paras 20-22)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
      28 October 2010 (*)
      
      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide maritime transport services – Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 – Articles 1 and 4 – Cabotage services within a Member State – Obligation to conclude public service contracts on a non-discriminatory basis – Conclusion of an exclusive contract, without a prior call for tenders, before the date of accession of a Member State to
         the European Union)
      
      In Case C‑508/08,
      ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 November 2008,
      European Commission, represented by J. Aquilina and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
      
      applicant,
      v
      Republic of Malta, represented by S. Camilleri, L. Spiteri and A. Fenech, acting as Agents,
      
      defendant,
      THE COURT (Second Chamber),
      composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, A. Arabadjiev, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), A. Ó Caoimh and P. Lindh,
         Judges,
      
      Advocate General: E. Sharpston,
      Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
      having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 May 2010,
      after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 1 July 2010,
      gives the following
      Judgment
      1        By its application, the Commission of the European Communities has asked the Court to declare that, by signing an exclusive
         public service contract with Gozo Channel Co. Ltd (‘GCCL’) on 16 April 2004, without having undertaken a prior call for tenders,
         the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying
         the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364,
         p. 7), in particular Articles 1 and 4 thereof.
      
       Legal context
       Act of Accession
      2        Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of
         Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of
         Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
         founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33; ‘the Act of Accession’) provides:
      
      ‘From the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions and the European
         Central Bank before accession shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions
         laid down in those Treaties and in this Act.’
      
       Regulation No 3577/92
      3        Article 1(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 provides:
      
      ‘As from 1 January 1993, freedom to provide maritime transport services within a Member State (maritime cabotage) shall apply
         to Community shipowners who have their ships registered in, and flying the flag of, a Member State, provided that these ships
         comply with all conditions for carrying out cabotage in that Member State, including ships registered in Euros, once that
         Register is approved by the Council.’
      
      4        Article 4(1) of that regulation states:
      
      ‘A Member State may conclude public service contracts with or impose public service obligations as a condition for the provision
         of cabotage services, on shipping companies participating in regular services to, from and between islands.
      
      Whenever a Member State concludes public service contracts or imposes public service obligations, it shall do so on a non‑discriminatory
         basis in respect of all Community shipowners.’
      
       Background to the dispute and the pre-litigation procedure
      5        During the negotiations for the accession of the Republic of Malta to the European Union, on 26 October 2001 the European
         Union adopted a common position (Conference on accession to the European Union – Malta – doc. 20766/01 CONF‑M 80/01) in relation
         to the chapter on transport policy. The common position stated: ‘the EU notes that Malta intends to conclude explicit public
         service obligation contracts both with Sea Malta Co. Ltd and [with GCCL] of 5 years’ duration each by 30 June 2002 and that
         upon termination of these contracts tendering procedures will apply in line with the relevant acquis’.
      
      6        By letter of 7 March 2005, in response to a request for information to it from the Commission, the Republic of Malta confirmed
         that the Maltese Government had on 16 April 2004 concluded two six-year exclusive public service obligation contracts with
         GCCL and with Sea Malta Co. Ltd for the provision of maritime transport services between the islands of Malta and Gozo.
      
      7        The Commission therefore decided to initiate the procedure under Article 226 EC. By letter of formal notice dated 10 April
         2006, that institution stated that the contracts, which had been concluded without a prior call for tenders, were not in compliance
         with Community law since, first, they had not been concluded by means of a non‑discriminatory procedure and, second, it had
         not been demonstrated that they were either necessary or proportionate.
      
      8        On 12 June 2006, the Republic of Malta replied to that letter of formal notice.
      
      9        Since it was not satisfied with that reply, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 15 December 2006, stating that, by
         signing an exclusive contract with GCCL on 16 April 2004 for the provision of the maritime transport service between the islands
         of Malta and Gozo, without having undertaken a prior call for tenders, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations
         under Regulation No 3577/92, in particular Articles 1 and 4 thereof. The Commission called on the Republic of Malta to adopt,
         within two months of receiving the reasoned opinion, the measures necessary to comply with it.
      
      10      The Republic of Malta replied to the reasoned opinion by letter of 15 June 2008, in which it informed the Commission that
         preparations had been commenced for the issuing of a call for tenders for the provision of maritime transport services between
         the islands of Malta and Gozo, which was to take place no later than October 2008.
      
      11      In those circumstances, the Commission brought the present action.
      
       The action
      12      In support of its action, the Commission submits that, first, it follows from the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation
         No 3577/92 that the conclusion of a public service maritime cabotage contract must be preceded by a tendering procedure conducted
         on a non‑discriminatory and open basis at Community level, whereas the contract concluded on 16 April 2004 between the Maltese
         Government and GCCL did not result from such a procedure.
      
      13      Second, it is apparent from Case C-205/99 Analir and Others [2001] ECR I-1271 that a public service contract complies with the requirements of Regulation No 3577/92 only if a real public
         service need can be demonstrated. However, with regard to the contract concluded with GCCL, the Republic of Malta did not
         demonstrate sufficiently either that there was such a need or that an exclusive contract was necessary and proportionate.
      
      14      The Republic of Malta argues, as its principal plea in defence, that Regulation No 3577/92 was not applicable to that contract,
         since it was concluded before 1 May 2004, the date of the Member State’s accession to the European Union.
      
      15      In its reply, the Commission does not dispute that that regulation was not applicable to the Republic of Malta on the date
         on which the contract at issue was signed, that is to say, on 16 April 2004. However, it contends that it is precisely from
         1 May 2004 that, as regards that contract, the Member State was not in compliance with its obligations under the regulation.
         At the hearing, the Commission further stated that that non‑compliance consists in having maintained the contract in force
         after the date of accession of the Republic of Malta to the European Union.
      
      16      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that it is clear from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
         Justice and from the case-law relating to that provision that an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings
         and a 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.