European Commission v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2014-01-16
24. The plea of inadmissibility makes it possible, for reasons of economy of procedure, to confine the debate and examination, at an early stage in the proceedings, to the question whether the action at issue is admissible. Thus, it is possible, as a result of the preliminary issue, to avoid a situation in which the parties’ pleadings and the Court’s examination go into the substance of the case, even though the action is inadmissible (see Case C‑197/09 RX‑II Review of M  v EMEA  [2009] ECR I‑12033, paragraph 48).
30. Nevertheless, it is for the Court, in any event, to determine whether or not the alleged breach of obligations exists, even if the Member State concerned does not deny the breach (see Case C‑439/99 Commission  v Italy  [2002] ECR I‑305, paragraph 20, and Case C‑438/07 Commission  v Sweden  [2009] ECR I‑9517, paragraph 53).
31. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case‑law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C‑473/10 Commission  v Hungary  [2013] ECR, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited).
41. It should be borne in mind, in this regard, that it is clear from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure 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 follows that the essential points of law and of fact on which an action is based must be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and that the heads of claim must be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita  or indeed fail to rule on a complaint (see, inter alia, judgment of 12 February 2009 in Case C‑475/07 Commission  v Poland , paragraph 43, and Case C‑165/08 Commission  v Poland  [2009] ECR I‑6843, paragraph 42).
42. The Court has also held that, where 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 can know exactly the full extent of the alleged infringement of European Union law, a condition which 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 (see, inter alia, Case C‑165/08 Commission  v Poland , paragraph 43).
52. It is settled case-law that the letter of formal notice from the Commission to the Member State concerned and then the reasoned opinion issued by it delimit the subject-matter of the dispute, with the result that that subject-matter cannot subsequently be extended. Consequently, the reasoned opinion and the application must be based on the same complaints (see, inter alia, Case C‑191/95 Commission  v Germany  [1998] ECR I‑5449, paragraph 55, and Case C‑139/00 Commission  v Spain  [2002] ECR I‑6407, paragraph 18).
53. However, that requirement cannot be stretched so far as to mean that in every case the statement of the complaints set out in the letter of formal notice, the wording of the reasoned opinion and the form of order sought in the application must be exactly the same, provided that the subject-matter of the proceedings, as defined in the reasoned opinion, has not been extended or altered (see, inter alia, Commission  v Germany, paragraph 56, and Commission  v Spain , paragraph 19).