C-427/00
ECLI:EU:C:2001:396
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0427
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-427/00
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 10 July 2001 1
1. The European Commission is seeking a bathing waters for the physical, chemical declaration from the Court of Justice that and microbiological parameters given in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Annex to the Directive. In accordance Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its with Article 2, those parameters form an obligations under Article 3 of Council integral part of the Directive. Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water 2 ('the Directive').
4. Under Article 4, Member States ought to have taken the measures necessary to I — The Directive ensure that, within 10 years of the notifica- tion of the Directive, the quality of bathing water conformed to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3. The Directive was notified to the United Kingdom on 2. The aim of the Directive, as stated in the 10 December 1975, so the relevant period first recital in its preamble and in Article 1, expired on 10 December 1985. is to protect the environment and public health by reducing the pollution of bathing water, with the exception of water intended for therapeutic purposes and water used in swimming pools, and protecting it against degradation.
5. Under Article 13 of the Directive, as amended,3 Member States are required to send the Commission a report on their 3. Article 3 requires Member States to set, bathing waters and the most significant for all bathing areas or for each individual characteristics thereof. bathing area, the values applicable to
3 — As amended by Article 3 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardising and rationalising 1 — Original language: Spanish. reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating 2 — OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1. to the environment (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48).
I - 8536
COMMISSION v UNITED KINGDOM
6. Thus, Member States are required inter 9. Since it considered that response inade- alia, by virtue of the Directive, to set for all quate, the Commission sent the United bathing areas the values for the physical, Kingdom a reasoned opinion, granting it a chemical and microbiological parameters two-month period in which to comply with laid down and to take the measures neces- its obligations. sary to ensure that, within a period of 10 years following notification of the Direc- tive, the quality of bathing water conforms to the said values. 4
10. The Government responded on 14 June 1999, conceding that the bathing water for which it was responsible did not conform to the standards set by the Directive. However, it added that the situation in 1997 was exceptional, that the compliance I I — Facts rate had risen in the 1999 bathing season to 91.4% and that as a result of remedial measures already under way a compliance rate of 97% would be achieved before 2005. 7. The Commission concluded from the United Kingdom's reports concerning the 1996 and 1997 bathing seasons that the percentage of United Kingdom bathing areas complying with the requirements of the Directive was respectively 89.4% and 11. The Commission brought the present 88.3%. On 22 January 1999 it drew the action since it was of the opinion that, on Government's attention to that fact and the expiry of the period laid down in the asked it to submit such observations as it reasoned opinion, the United Kingdom considered appropriate. remained in breach of its obligations.
8. The United Kingdom authorities respon- ded by letter of 30 March 1999, in which they stated that they were determined to III— Arguments of the parties and the comply with the Directive's mandatory procedure before the Court of Justice standards as quickly as possible and indi- cated the measures that were being taken to improve the quality of bathing water. 12. The Commission claims that the Court 4 — See point 8 of my Opinion of 18 January 2001 in a case in of Justice should declare that the United which judgment was delivered on 15 March 2001 (Case Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387), in which I cited the judgment in Case 96/81 Commission v under the Directive, since it has not ensured Netherlands [1982] ECR 1791, paragraph 2. that its bathing water conforms to the limit
I - 8537
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-427/00
values set in Article 3 in conjunction with 16. The Directive required Member States the Annex, and order it to pay the costs. to ensure that certain results were achieved and not merely to take the measures necessary to improve the quality of bathing water so as to comply with the limits set out in the Directive, 5subject to the dero- gations prescribed therein, 6which do not apply in this case. 13. For its part, the United Kingdom Gov- ernment accepts the position as regards the bathing seasons referred to in the Commis- sion's application.
17. Although significant efforts may have been made to comply with the Directive, a single instance of non-compliance in a 14. Upon hearing the report of the Judge- single season, which cannot be put down Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate to compliance being absolutely impossible, General, and with the express agreement of is sufficient to constitute an infringement of the parties, the Court of Justice, under the Directive. 7 Article 44a of the Rules of Procedure, decided to dispense with the oral part of the procedure.
18. Accordingly, I propose that the Court of Justice should declare that — as the latter itself admits — it has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive, since IV — The infringement during the 1996 and 1997 bathing seasons its bathing water did not conform in its entirety to the limits set out in Article 3 in conjunction with the annex. 8
15. The United Kingdom Government admits the facts of which the Commission 5 — See Case C-56/90 Commission v United Kingdom [1993] complains, that is to say, that during the ECR 1-4109, paragraphs 42 to 44; Case C-92/96 Commis- sion v Stain [1998] ECR 1-505, paragraph 28; Case 1996 and 1997 bathing seasons United C-198/97 Commission v Germany [1999] ECR I-3257, paragraph 35; and Case C-307/98 Commission v Belgium Kingdom bathing water did not conform in [2000] ECR I-3933, paragraph 48. its entirety to the values provided for in 6 — Article 4(3), Article 5(2) and Article 8. Article 3 of the Directive in conjunction 7 — See point 58 of my Opinion in Commission v Belgium, cited above, in which I referred to paragraph 34 of the judgment with the Annex thereto. Consequently, the in Commission v Germany. See also the footnote on page 10 of the Opinion mentioned in footnote 4 above. Court of Justice should treat the allegation 8 — In Case C-368/00 Commission v Sweden [2001] ECR of failure to fulfil obligations as proven and 1-4605 the Court of Justice upheld an action against the Kingdom of Sweden for failure to fulfil its obligations under make a declaration to that effect in its the Directive. As in the present case, the infringement had judgment. been admitted by the defendant State.
I - 8538
COMMISSION v UNITED KINGDOM
V — Costs pay the costs, pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
19. Since the Commission's action has been upheld, the defendant must be ordered to
VI — Conclusion
20. I propose that, in view of the foregoing, the Court of Justice uphold the present action and declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, since it has failed to take the necessary measures to ensure that the quality of its bathing water conforms to the mandatory limit values prescribed by the Directive, and that the defendant must pay the costs.
I - 8539