# C_2015328EN.01000201.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/2

---

Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-320/15)

(2015/C 328/02)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and E. Manhaeve)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste-water treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste-water treatment;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | By its action, the Commission specifies the plants of particular agglomerations in the Hellenic Republic which do not comply with the directive’s requirements, either because the necessary plants have not been constructed or upgraded in an appropriate manner (agglomerations of Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli, Vagia and Galatista), and therefore the urban waste water of those agglomerations is not subject before discharge to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, or because the samples which were taken (agglomerations of Desfina, Polikhrono and Khanioti) show that the plants do not operate in accordance with the directive’s requirements. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By its action, the Commission specifies the plants of particular agglomerations in the Hellenic Republic which do not comply with the directive’s requirements, either because the necessary plants have not been constructed or upgraded in an appropriate manner (agglomerations of Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli, Vagia and Galatista), and therefore the urban waste water of those agglomerations is not subject before discharge to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, or because the samples which were taken (agglomerations of Desfina, Polikhrono and Khanioti) show that the plants do not operate in accordance with the directive’s requirements.

| 2. | Under Article 4(1) of Directive 91/271/EC, urban waste water (of agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 2  000) entering collecting systems must before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, whilst under Article 4(3) the discharges in question must satisfy the relevant requirements of Annex I.B (one of which is that representative samples of the incoming waste water and of treated effluent be obtained before discharge to receiving waters). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under Article 4(1) of Directive 91/271/EC, urban waste water (of agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 2  000) entering collecting systems must before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, whilst under Article 4(3) the discharges in question must satisfy the relevant requirements of Annex I.B (one of which is that representative samples of the incoming waste water and of treated effluent be obtained before discharge to receiving waters).

| 3. | The Commission notes that, in order for a Member State to be regarded as complying with the requirements of the directive concerning urban waste-water treatment, it must provide satisfactory information relating to the quality of its waste water after treatment. Furthermore, in order for there to be a reliable assessment of the quality of an agglomeration’s effluent in accordance with the directive, and therefore treatment thereof that complies with Article 4 of the directive, the Member States must produce satisfactory results for a period of at least a year after operation of the equipment has begun, by taking samples in accordance with the methodology set out in the directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission notes that, in order for a Member State to be regarded as complying with the requirements of the directive concerning urban waste-water treatment, it must provide satisfactory information relating to the quality of its waste water after treatment. Furthermore, in order for there to be a reliable assessment of the quality of an agglomeration’s effluent in accordance with the directive, and therefore treatment thereof that complies with Article 4 of the directive, the Member States must produce satisfactory results for a period of at least a year after operation of the equipment has begun, by taking samples in accordance with the methodology set out in the directive.

(Α)   Agglomerations of Prosotsani (p.e. 5 882), Doxato (p.e. 3 815), Eleftheroupoli (p.e. 4 934), Vagia (p.e. 4 509) and Galatista (p.e. 2 974)

Agglomerations of Prosotsani (p.e. 5 882), Doxato (p.e. 3 815), Eleftheroupoli (p.e. 4 934), Vagia (p.e. 4 509) and Galatista (p.e. 2 974)

| 4. | The Commission considers that, since the urban waste water of four agglomerations (Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli and Vagia) is not subject before discharge to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, Article 4 of the directive is infringed. Furthermore, the Greek authorities themselves acknowledge that those agglomerations will comply fully with the provisions of the directive only when the co-funded projects have been completed. According to the Commission, although the necessary projects have already been included in priority axis ‘02 Protection and Management of Water Resources’ of the operational programme ‘Environment and Sustainable Development’, it is not envisaged that they will be completed in good time in respect of the agglomerations of Eleftheroupoli and Prosotsani, whilst the Greek authorities did not give a clear date for the agglomerations of Vagia and Doxato. It is apparent from the Greek authorities’ responses that operation of the relevant plant of Galatitsa is problematic and that it will have to be upgraded in order to operate in accordance with the directive’s provisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission considers that, since the urban waste water of four agglomerations (Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli and Vagia) is not subject before discharge to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, Article 4 of the directive is infringed. Furthermore, the Greek authorities themselves acknowledge that those agglomerations will comply fully with the provisions of the directive only when the co-funded projects have been completed. According to the Commission, although the necessary projects have already been included in priority axis ‘02 Protection and Management of Water Resources’ of the operational programme ‘Environment and Sustainable Development’, it is not envisaged that they will be completed in good time in respect of the agglomerations of Eleftheroupoli and Prosotsani, whilst the Greek authorities did not give a clear date for the agglomerations of Vagia and Doxato. It is apparent from the Greek authorities’ responses that operation of the relevant plant of Galatitsa is problematic and that it will have to be upgraded in order to operate in accordance with the directive’s provisions.

(Β)   Agglomerations of Desfina (p.e. 2 024), Polikhrono (p.e. 10 443) and Khanioti (p.e. 9 000)

Agglomerations of Desfina (p.e. 2 024), Polikhrono (p.e. 10 443) and Khanioti (p.e. 9 000)

| 5. | In relation to the three agglomerations (Desfina, Polikhrono and Khanioti), although the Greek authorities sent the results of the various samples that were taken in the waste water treatment plants, the Commission considers that the samples show that those plants do not operate in compliance with the directive’s requirements. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In relation to the three agglomerations (Desfina, Polikhrono and Khanioti), although the Greek authorities sent the results of the various samples that were taken in the waste water treatment plants, the Commission considers that the samples show that those plants do not operate in compliance with the directive’s requirements.

Agglomeration of Polikhrono

Agglomeration of Polikhrono

| 6. | The Commission notes that the number of non-compliant samples, both for 2012 and for 2013, exceeds the permitted number and that sufficient samples were not collected for 2012 and for 2013. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission notes that the number of non-compliant samples, both for 2012 and for 2013, exceeds the permitted number and that sufficient samples were not collected for 2012 and for 2013.

Agglomeration of Khanioti

Agglomeration of Khanioti

| 7. | The samples which were sent to the Commission for this agglomeration cannot be regarded as representative and taken at regular intervals since no sample was taken between January and April 2012 and no relevant sample was sent for 2013 in respect of the agglomeration in question. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The samples which were sent to the Commission for this agglomeration cannot be regarded as representative and taken at regular intervals since no sample was taken between January and April 2012 and no relevant sample was sent for 2013 in respect of the agglomeration in question.

Agglomeration of Desfina

Agglomeration of Desfina

| 8. | Given that the number of samples that were collected for 2012 and 2013 was insufficient, they could not therefore have been taken at regular intervals as required by the directive; only two samples were taken in 2012 instead of 12, meaning that 10 months were not covered, and in 2013 eight samples were taken, two of which relate to the month of July, meaning that five months were not covered. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Given that the number of samples that were collected for 2012 and 2013 was insufficient, they could not therefore have been taken at regular intervals as required by the directive; only two samples were taken in 2012 instead of 12, meaning that 10 months were not covered, and in 2013 eight samples were taken, two of which relate to the month of July, meaning that five months were not covered.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

1

---