- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-46/09: Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009CN0046
62009CN0046
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
18.4.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 90/12
(Case C-46/09)
2009/C 90/18
Language of the case: Estonian
Parties
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Randvere and K. Simonsson)
Defendant: Republic of Estonia
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare that, since it has not correctly transposed into national law the provisions of Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2000/59/EC;
—order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
It follows from Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2000/59 that the Republic of Estonia is under an obligation to establish criteria in order to select ships, other than fishing vessels and recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers, for inspection.
Article 11(2)(c) of Directive 2000/59 provides that, if the relevant authority is not satisfied with the results of this inspection, it must ensure that the ship does not leave the port until it has delivered its ship-generated waste and cargo residues to a port reception facility in accordance with Articles 7 and 10.
The Republic of Estonia has stated its intention to supplement the Estonian legislation in order to correctly transpose those provisions of the directive. The Commission does not have any information on the adoption of such amendments.
* * *
(1) OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81