- 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-563/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007CN0563
62007CN0563
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
23.2.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/37
(Case C-563/07)
(2008/C 51/61)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and D. Lawunmi, Agents)
Defendant: Republic of Malta
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare that, by failing to provide the information necessary to comply with Decision No. 280/2004/EC (‘the Decision’) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community Greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1) in Malta in conjunction with Articles 2 to 7 of Commission Decision 166/2005/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision 280/2004/EC, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of the Decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments
According to Article 3(1) of decision No 280/2004/EC the Member States shall, for the assessment of actual progress and to enable the preparation of annual reports by the Community, in accordance with obligations under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol, provide the Commission with certain information regarding greenhouse gas emissions by 15 January each year.
In view of the fact that the Republic of Malta has not provided the Commission with the information due on 15 January 2006 the Commission is obliged to assume that the Maltese authorities have failed to meet their obligations under Article 3(1) of the decision.
(1) OJ L 49, p. 1.