C-268/00
ECLI:EU:C:2002:26
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0268
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-268/00
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 17 January 2002 1
1. In this case the Commission seeks a the quality of bathing water conforms to declaration, pursuant to Article 226 EC, the limit values set in accordance with that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has Article 3.' failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 2 concerning the quality of bathing water. As the Directive was notified on 10 December 1975, the time limit expired on 10 December 1985.
2. The Directive has as its object the protection of the environment and public health, and to those ends it seeks to reduce 4. Article 6(1) provides: the pollution of bathing water and to protect such water against further deterio- ration.
'The competent authorities in the Member States shall carry out sampling operations, the minimum frequency of which is laid down in the Annex.' Pursuant to 3. Article 4(1) of the Directive provides: Article 12(1) the sampling operations were to commence within two years of the notification of the Directive.
'Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that, within 10 years following the notification of this Directive, 5. In its application the Commission con- tends that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 1 — Original language: English. Article 6(1) of the Directive, as appears 2 — OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1. from the Commission's report for the 1999
I - 2996
COMMISSION v NETHERLANDS
season: 0.7% of inland waters (four of the Netherlands Government, the results of 528 bathing areas) remained insufficiently sampling in the 1999 season show a con- sampled, and 8% of the inland waters did siderable improvement by comparison with not comply with the minimum limit values. previous years, and the insufficient sam- pling in the four bathing areas was due to human error. As regards the 8% of inland waters which did not comply with mini- mum limit values, that represented an 6. The Netherlands accepts that it has not increase by comparison with 1998, but complied with its obligations in the matters the results in half of the waters concerned invoked by the Commission. It submits were probably due to faulty analysis, and observations on the reasons for earlier the rest to specific causes. In conclusion the infringements (in 1996, 1997 and 1998); Netherlands recognises that it has not on the measures meanwhile taken to avoid complied with its obligations under new infringements; and on the frequency of Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of the Direc- sampling and the quality of bathing water tive. in the 1999 season. According to the
Conclusion
7. Accordingly the Court should in my opinion:
(1) declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water;
(2) order the Kingdom of Netherlands to pay the costs.
I - 2997