- 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-277/13: Action brought on 21 May 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0277
62013CN0277
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
10.8.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 233/2
(Case C-277/13)
2013/C 233/02
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and F.W. Bulst, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Portuguese Republic
Form of order sought
The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:
—declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures for the organisation of a selection procedure for suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling, ramp handling and freight and mail handling services at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports, in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 96/67/EC, the Portuguese State has failed to comply with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports;
—order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Having failed to open up its groundhandling market to suppliers, the Portuguese State has acted contrary to European Union law.
Having limited the number of groundhandling service suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling, ramp handling and freight and mail handling services, the Portuguese State was required to organise a selection procedure in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 96/67/EC. The procedure should also have been organised following consultation with the Airport Users’ Committee. Moreover, pursuant to Article 11(1)(d) of Directive 96/67/EC, suppliers are to be selected for a maximum period of seven years.
Language of the case: Portuguese
(1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.