European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2017-06-28
39


It that regard, it must be recalled that, in accordance with Article 120(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the case-law relating to that provision, an application initiating proceedings in respect of direct actions must state the subject matter of the proceedings and set out a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based; 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 follows that the essential points of law and of fact on which such an action is based must be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (judgment of 2 June 2016, Commission v Netherlands, C‑233/14, EU:C:2016:396, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
40


The Court has also held that, when an action is brought under Article 258 TFEU, the application must set out the complaints coherently and precisely, so that the Member State and the Court may ascertain exactly the scope of the alleged infringement of EU law, a condition that must be satisfied if the Member State is to be able to present an effective defence and the Court to determine whether there has been a breach of obligations, as alleged (judgment of 2 June 2016, Commission v Netherlands, C‑233/14, EU:C:2016:396, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited)
49


Furthermore, and as is clear from paragraph 1 above, it must be pointed out that the Commission has, in particular in the application, taken care to refer to, for each of the complaints relied upon, not only the article at issue from Directive 2012/34 but also the corresponding provision in Directives 91/440 and 2001/14, thereby excluding any uncertainty as to the identification of the EU law in the light of which the merits of that action fall to be assessed or with regard to the scope of the alleged failure to fulfil obligations (see, by analogy, judgment of 22 October 2014, Commission v Netherlands, C‑252/13, EU:C:2014:2312, paragraphs 35 to 37).
50


Moreover, it is settled case-law that the Commission has standing to seek a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil obligations which were created in the original version of an EU measure, subsequently amended or repealed, and which were maintained in force under the provisions of a new EU measure (judgment of 19 December 2013, Commission v Poland, C‑281/11, EU:C:2013:855, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). As the Commission points out in its reply, its action relates exclusively to the provisions of Directive 2012/34 already laid down in Directives 91/440 and 2001/14.
52


As a preliminary matter and in view of the publication of the Corrigendum of 12 March 2015 according to which the date for the repeal of Directives 91/440 and 2001/14 is now set at 17 June 2015, it should be noted that, on the date taken into account in the assessment of the merits of the present action (judgment of 8 April 2014, Commission v Hungary, C‑288/12, EU:C:2014:237, paragraph 29), namely, 21 August 2013, the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, Directives 91/440 and 2001/14 were applicable ratione temporis.
84


According to settled case-law, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU, it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to place before the Court the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, without the Commission being entitled to rely on any presumption (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 November 2012, Commission v Germany, C‑600/10, not published, EU:C:2012:737, paragraph 13, and of 10 November 2016, Commission v Greece, C‑504/14, EU:C:2016:847, paragraph 111 and case-law cited).