| | ECJR-92 (Rules of Procedure)Clearly inadmissible ![DK Cases](file:///D:/FrontPage%20Webs/Content/lexnet/nor-proc/images/buttons/button26.gif)
ECJ (Rules of Procedure) | Article 92 | 1. Where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court may, by reasoned order, after hearing the Advocate General and without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action. 2. The Court may at any time of its own motion, after hearing the parties, decide whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with a case or declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it; it shall give its decision in accordance with Article 91(3) and (4) of these Rules. |
Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-503/04 Germany | 17-22 | ECT-226 ECT-228 ECJR-92.2 | 17. Secondly, in its rejoinder, the Federal Republic of Germany, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, requests the Court to close the procedure by application of Article 92(2) of the Rules of Procedure, as the action has become devoid of purpose since, with effect from 10 July 2005, the contract concluded by the City of Brunswick concerning waste disposal has also been rescinded. 18. The Commission responds, in its observations relating to the statements in intervention of the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and of the Republic of Finland, that it retains an interest in obtaining from the Court a ruling on whether, on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion issued under Article 228 EC, the Federal Republic of Germany had already complied with the judgment of 10 April 2003 in Joined Cases C20/01 and C28/01 Commission v Germany . The Commission states, however, that an order for payment of a periodic penalty payment is no longer necessary. 19. In that regard, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 228 EC is the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued under that provision (see Case C119/04 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I6885, paragraph 27, and case-law cited). 20. In the present case, the period referred to in the reasoned opinion which, as is apparent from the receipt stamp, was received by the German authorities on 1 April 2004, was one of two months. The reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 228 EC is therefore 1 June 2004. At that date, the contract concluded by the City of Brunswick for waste disposal had not yet been terminated. 21. Nor, moreover, is the action inadmissible contrary to the Federal Republic of Germany's submissions at the hearing, on the ground that the Commission is no longer requesting the imposition of a periodic penalty payment. 22. Since the Court has jurisdiction to impose a financial penalty not suggested by the Commission (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263, paragraph 90), the action is not inadmissible simply because the Commission takes the view, at a certain stage of the procedure before the Court, that a penalty is no longer necessary. |
|
|