European Commission v Portuguese Republic.
Date: 2012-11-15
42. Even though the Portuguese Republic has not put forward a plea that this action is inadmissible, it should nevertheless be noted at the outset that 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‑524/10 Commission  v Portugal [2012] ECR, paragraph 64).
43. From that point of view, it should be examined 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 this effect, Case C‑199/04 Commission  v United Kingdom [2007] ECR I‑1221, paragraphs 20 and 21, and judgment of 24 March 2011 in Case C‑365/10 Commission  v Slovenia , paragraph 19).
44. Indeed, as follows in particular from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 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, inter alia, Case C‑211/08 Commission  v Spain [2010] ECR I‑5267, paragraph 32; Case C‑185/11 Commission v Slovenia , paragraph 29; and judgment of 19 April 2012 in Case C‑141/10 Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 15).
46. However, the Commission does not specify, either in the form of order sought in the application or in the grounds thereof, the years for which the breach of obligations is alleged. In invoking only Directive 2008/50, it merely alleges that there is a current breach of obligations and that the Court’s decision must apply to the present and not the past, without however specifying the period referred to.
47. 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 Portuguese Republic, according to the Commission’s assertions, has infringed European Union law, does not satisfy the requirements of coherence, clarity and precision.
48. In addition, inasmuch as the Commission does not set out the exact period concerned by the alleged breach of obligations and fails, moreover, to provide pertinent evidence in laconically stating that it has no legal interest in this case in seeking from the Court a ruling on past facts given that it gains no advantage from a judgment making a finding in relation to a past situation, the Commission not only manifestly fails to have regard to the obligations, both for the Court and for itself, resulting from the case‑law cited at paragraphs 43 and 44 of this judgment, but also fails to put the Court in a position to rule on these infringement proceedings.
52. In relation to the merits of this action, it need only be noted that the Portuguese Republic admits, in its observations, that the limit values applicable to the daily PM 10 concentrations in ambient air were exceeded within the limits noted at paragraph 50 of this judgment.
53. Consequently, the action should be upheld within these limits.