European Commission v Italian Republic.
Date: 2012-12-19
49. It should be noted at the outset that, even though the Italian Republic has not put forward a plea that this action is inadmissible, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 258 TFEU for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied (see, inter alia, Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy [1992] ECR I-2353, paragraph 8; judgment of 26 January 2012 in Case C-185/11 Commission v Slovenia , paragraph 28; and Case C-34/11 Commission v Portugal  [2012] ECR, paragraph 42).
50. From that point of view, it should be determined whether the reasoned opinion and the action set out the complaints coherently and precisely in order that the Court may appreciate exactly the extent of the alleged infringement of European Union law, a condition which is necessary in order to enable the Court to determine whether there has been a breach of obligations as alleged (see, to that effect, Case C-199/04 Commission v United Kingdom  [2007] ECR I-1221, paragraphs 20 and 21, and Commission v Portugal , paragraph 43).
51. Indeed, as follows in particular from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice in the version in force at the date of commencement of the action and from the case-law relating to that provision, the application initiating proceedings must state the subject-matter of the dispute and a 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).
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).
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 PM 10 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 PM 10  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 PM 10 in ambient air were exceeded within the limits stated at paragraph 56 of this judgment.
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).
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 PM 10 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