4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/13

(Case C-58/16)

(2016/C 118/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare that, by failing to ensure that, for all ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen, the boundaries of each port are defined, that port security assessments and port security plans are established and that port security officers are approved, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security;

—order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 6 of Directive 2005/65/EC, Member States are required to ensure that a port security assessment is carried out for each of the ports covered by that directive and that it is approved by the Member State concerned. Pursuant to Annex I to that directive, such port security assessments must include all areas that are relevant to port security, including the port boundaries.

Pursuant to Article 2(3), Member States are required to define the boundaries for each port, taking into account, as appropriate, information resulting from the port security assessment. Article 2(4) deal with the case in which the boundaries of a port facility within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 (2) effectively cover the port.

The inspection carried out in 2013 revealed that, for at least eleven of the ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by Directive 2005/65/EC, no security assessment had been carried out. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.

At least as far as those ports are concerned, the boundaries of the port facilities have also not been defined, since the definition of those boundaries is in turn based on the security assessments, as mentioned above.

It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Articles 2(3) and 6 of Directive 2005/65/EC.

Pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2005/65/EC, Member States are required to ensure that a port security plan is established for each port covered by the directive and that it is approved by the Member State concerned.

In their letter of 21 August 2013, the German authorities acknowledged that, with regard to eleven of the ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by the directive, port security plans were lacking. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.

It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Article 7 of Directive 2005/65/EC.

Pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC, a port security officer must be approved for each port covered by that directive.

In their letter of 21 August 2013, the German authorities acknowledged that, with regard to several ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by the directive, no port security officers had been approved. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.

It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Article 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC.

(1) OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28.

(2) OJ 2004 L 129, p. 6.