# 62020CJ0683

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

13 January 2022 (
  *1
  )

*1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 2002/49/EC – Assessment and management of environmental noise – Major roads and major railways – Article 8(2) – Action plans – Article 10(2) – Annex VI – Summaries of action plans – Failure to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period)

In Case C‐683/20,

ACTION for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU, brought on 17 December 2020,

European Commission, represented by R. Lindenthal and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents,

European Commission

applicant,

v

Slovak Republic, represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent,

Slovak Republic

defendant,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of J. Passer (Rapporteur), President of the Seventh Chamber, acting as President of the Eighth Chamber, F. Biltgen and N. Wahl, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Pikamäe,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

Judgment

| 1 | By its application, the European Commission asks the Court to declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by not communicating to the Commission summaries of action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12), read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. |
| --- | --- |

1

By its application, the European Commission asks the Court to declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by not communicating to the Commission summaries of action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12), read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto.

Legal context

Legal context

| 2 | Article 3 of Directive 2002/49, titled ‘Definitions’, states as follows:
  ‘For the purposes of this Directive:
  ...





  (n) | “major road” shall mean a regional, national or international road, designated by the Member State, which has more than three million vehicle passages a year; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2

Article 3 of Directive 2002/49, titled ‘Definitions’, states as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Directive:

...

(n)

“major road” shall mean a regional, national or international road, designated by the Member State, which has more than three million vehicle passages a year;

| (o) | “major railway” shall mean a railway, designated by the Member State, which has more than 30000 train passages per year; |
| --- | --- |

(o)

“major railway” shall mean a railway, designated by the Member State, which has more than 30000 train passages per year;

...

| (t) | “action plans” shall mean plans designed to manage noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

(t)

“action plans” shall mean plans designed to manage noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary;

...’

| 3 | Article 8 of that directive, entitled ‘Action plans’, provides as follows:
  ‘...
  2.   Member States shall ensure that, no later than 18 July 2013, the competent authorities have drawn up action plans notably to address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States for the agglomerations and for the major roads as well as the major railways within their territories.
  ...
  5.   The action plans shall be reviewed, and revised if necessary, when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation, and at least every five years after the date of their approval.
  ...
  7.   Member States shall ensure that the public is consulted about proposals for action plans, given early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation and review of the action plans, that the results of that participation are taken into account and that the public is informed on the decisions taken. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each stage of public participation.
  If the obligation to carry out a public participation procedure arises simultaneously from this Directive and any other [EU] legislation, Member States may provide for joint procedures in order to avoid duplication.’ |
| --- | --- |

3

Article 8 of that directive, entitled ‘Action plans’, provides as follows:

‘...

2.   Member States shall ensure that, no later than 18 July 2013, the competent authorities have drawn up action plans notably to address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States for the agglomerations and for the major roads as well as the major railways within their territories.

...

5.   The action plans shall be reviewed, and revised if necessary, when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation, and at least every five years after the date of their approval.

...

7.   Member States shall ensure that the public is consulted about proposals for action plans, given early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation and review of the action plans, that the results of that participation are taken into account and that the public is informed on the decisions taken. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each stage of public participation.

If the obligation to carry out a public participation procedure arises simultaneously from this Directive and any other [EU] legislation, Member States may provide for joint procedures in order to avoid duplication.’

| 4 | Article 10 of that directive, entitled ‘Collection and publication of data by Member States and the Commission’, provides as follows, in paragraph 2 thereof:
  ‘The Member States shall ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI are sent to the Commission within six months of the dates laid down in Articles 7 and 8 respectively.’ |
| --- | --- |

4

Article 10 of that directive, entitled ‘Collection and publication of data by Member States and the Commission’, provides as follows, in paragraph 2 thereof:

‘The Member States shall ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI are sent to the Commission within six months of the dates laid down in Articles 7 and 8 respectively.’

| 5 | Annex V to that directive lays down the minimum requirements for action plans. |
| --- | --- |

5

Annex V to that directive lays down the minimum requirements for action plans.

| 6 | Annex VI to that directive sets out the data to be sent to the Commission, including, inter alia, for major roads, major railways and major airports ‘a summary of the action plan covering all the important aspects referred to in Annex V, not exceeding ten pages in length’. |
| --- | --- |

6

Annex VI to that directive sets out the data to be sent to the Commission, including, inter alia, for major roads, major railways and major airports ‘a summary of the action plan covering all the important aspects referred to in Annex V, not exceeding ten pages in length’.

Pre-litigation procedure

Pre-litigation procedure

| 7 | On 25 June 2010, the Slovak authorities communicated to the Commission, by means of the Reportnet electronic portal of the European Environmental Information and Observation Network (Eionet), a list of agglomerations, major roads, major railways and major airports falling within the scope of Directive 2002/49. On 16 January 2014, it updated that list as far as the major railways were concerned. |
| --- | --- |

7

On 25 June 2010, the Slovak authorities communicated to the Commission, by means of the Reportnet electronic portal of the European Environmental Information and Observation Network (Eionet), a list of agglomerations, major roads, major railways and major airports falling within the scope of Directive 2002/49. On 16 January 2014, it updated that list as far as the major railways were concerned.

| 8 | On 27 March 2015, following an initial exchange of letters, the Commission’s services sent the Slovak authorities, in the context of EU Pilot procedure 7453/15/ENVI, a request concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/49. |
| --- | --- |

8

On 27 March 2015, following an initial exchange of letters, the Commission’s services sent the Slovak authorities, in the context of EU Pilot procedure 7453/15/ENVI, a request concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/49.

| 9 | On 26 May 2015, the Slovak authorities replied to that request and, on 24 July 2015, updated the data relating to agglomerations and major roads. |
| --- | --- |

9

On 26 May 2015, the Slovak authorities replied to that request and, on 24 July 2015, updated the data relating to agglomerations and major roads.

| 10 | On 29 April 2016, the Commission sent the Slovak Republic a letter of formal notice in which it found several failures by that Member State to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2002/49, in particular the obligation laid down in Article 8(2) to draw up action plans, as well as that, provided for in Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Annexes V and VI to that directive, to send it summaries of those action plans. |
| --- | --- |

10

On 29 April 2016, the Commission sent the Slovak Republic a letter of formal notice in which it found several failures by that Member State to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2002/49, in particular the obligation laid down in Article 8(2) to draw up action plans, as well as that, provided for in Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Annexes V and VI to that directive, to send it summaries of those action plans.

| 11 | By letter of 17 June 2016 the Slovak Republic replied to that letter of formal notice. |
| --- | --- |

11

By letter of 17 June 2016 the Slovak Republic replied to that letter of formal notice.

| 12 | On 15 June 2017, after examining that reply and the information communicated subsequently to that reply, the Commission sent the Slovak Republic a reasoned opinion. In that opinion, it found, inter alia, that that Member State had not drawn up action plans for 462 major roads and 16 major railways, in breach of Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex V thereto, and had not sent, in respect of those major roads and major railways, the summaries of the action plans, in breach of Article 10(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annexes V and VI thereto. The Commission set the Slovak Republic a deadline of two months from receipt of that opinion within which to adopt the measures necessary to put an end to those infringements. |
| --- | --- |

12

On 15 June 2017, after examining that reply and the information communicated subsequently to that reply, the Commission sent the Slovak Republic a reasoned opinion. In that opinion, it found, inter alia, that that Member State had not drawn up action plans for 462 major roads and 16 major railways, in breach of Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex V thereto, and had not sent, in respect of those major roads and major railways, the summaries of the action plans, in breach of Article 10(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annexes V and VI thereto. The Commission set the Slovak Republic a deadline of two months from receipt of that opinion within which to adopt the measures necessary to put an end to those infringements.

| 13 | By letter of 24 July 2017, the Slovak Republic stated that it had not been able to comply fully and in due time with the obligations arising under Directive 2002/49 because the road infrastructure managers and railway operators had failed to comply with their legal obligations within the prescribed periods. That Member State also informed the Commission that 17 action plans concerning major roads were in the process of being prepared. |
| --- | --- |

13

By letter of 24 July 2017, the Slovak Republic stated that it had not been able to comply fully and in due time with the obligations arising under Directive 2002/49 because the road infrastructure managers and railway operators had failed to comply with their legal obligations within the prescribed periods. That Member State also informed the Commission that 17 action plans concerning major roads were in the process of being prepared.

| 14 | On 21 August and 10 September 2020, the Slovak authorities sent new information to the Eionet network concerning the major roads and major railways, respectively. |
| --- | --- |

14

On 21 August and 10 September 2020, the Slovak authorities sent new information to the Eionet network concerning the major roads and major railways, respectively.

| 15 | Taking the view that the Slovak Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, the Commission decided to bring the present action. |
| --- | --- |

15

Taking the view that the Slovak Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, the Commission decided to bring the present action.

The action

The action

Arguments of the parties

Arguments of the parties

| 16 | While acknowledging that the Slovak Republic has made some progress in the implementation of Directive 2002/49 since the initiation of the proceedings, the Commission claims that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligation to send it summaries of the action plans in respect of 445 major roads outside agglomerations and 16 major railways outside agglomerations, as provided for in Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. Given the absence of any information to the contrary, the Commission thus infers that the Slovak Republic has not drawn up action plans for those roads and railways and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 8(2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

16

While acknowledging that the Slovak Republic has made some progress in the implementation of Directive 2002/49 since the initiation of the proceedings, the Commission claims that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligation to send it summaries of the action plans in respect of 445 major roads outside agglomerations and 16 major railways outside agglomerations, as provided for in Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. Given the absence of any information to the contrary, the Commission thus infers that the Slovak Republic has not drawn up action plans for those roads and railways and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 8(2) of that directive.

| 17 | The Slovak Republic concedes that it fulfilled late its obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49. It nevertheless considers that the present action has become devoid of purpose. |
| --- | --- |

17

The Slovak Republic concedes that it fulfilled late its obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49. It nevertheless considers that the present action has become devoid of purpose.

| 18 | It claims that, having sent to the Commission, on 10 September 2020, a document entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major railways managed by the Slovak national railway company (ŽSR) in operation in 2011 – Summary’, dating from July 2013, and, on 31 December 2020, a document entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major roads managed by the Slovak Road Administration (SSC) on the basis of the situation in 2011 – Summary’, dating from November 2020, none of the alleged failures to fulfil obligations remain applicable. |
| --- | --- |

18

It claims that, having sent to the Commission, on 10 September 2020, a document entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major railways managed by the Slovak national railway company (ŽSR) in operation in 2011 – Summary’, dating from July 2013, and, on 31 December 2020, a document entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major roads managed by the Slovak Road Administration (SSC) on the basis of the situation in 2011 – Summary’, dating from November 2020, none of the alleged failures to fulfil obligations remain applicable.

| 19 | In its reply, the Commission disputes the relevance of those documents. It submits that those documents refer to public consultations carried out in 2020. Since public consultations must, in accordance with Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, precede the adoption of action plans, those documents cannot therefore relate to action plans covering the period from 2013 to 2018. They are probably recent documents relating to a past situation. It follows from a systematic interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2002/49 that an action plan must be adopted in good time to cover a future period. In particular, it follows from the system of obligations established by that directive, in particular Article 8(5) thereof, that, after five years at the latest, action plans are to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised. Consequently, the adoption in 2020 of the action plan which should have been drawn up in 2013 cannot lead to compliance with Directive 2002/49. Were it possible to adopt action plans after the expiry of the period to which they relate, Directive 2002/49 would be rendered redundant. |
| --- | --- |

19

In its reply, the Commission disputes the relevance of those documents. It submits that those documents refer to public consultations carried out in 2020. Since public consultations must, in accordance with Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, precede the adoption of action plans, those documents cannot therefore relate to action plans covering the period from 2013 to 2018. They are probably recent documents relating to a past situation. It follows from a systematic interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2002/49 that an action plan must be adopted in good time to cover a future period. In particular, it follows from the system of obligations established by that directive, in particular Article 8(5) thereof, that, after five years at the latest, action plans are to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised. Consequently, the adoption in 2020 of the action plan which should have been drawn up in 2013 cannot lead to compliance with Directive 2002/49. Were it possible to adopt action plans after the expiry of the period to which they relate, Directive 2002/49 would be rendered redundant.

| 20 | The Commission adds that, in any event, the issue of whether the Slovak Republic fulfilled its obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49 must be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, in the present case, on 15 August 2017. It is common ground that, on that date, the Slovak Republic had yet to draw up action plans for 445 major roads and 16 major railways. |
| --- | --- |

20

The Commission adds that, in any event, the issue of whether the Slovak Republic fulfilled its obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49 must be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, in the present case, on 15 August 2017. It is common ground that, on that date, the Slovak Republic had yet to draw up action plans for 445 major roads and 16 major railways.

| 21 | The Slovak Republic rejects the Commission’s line of argument, which it submits is illogical and confused. It maintains that it follows from Directive 2002/49 that the action plans which that Member State was required to draw up for 16 major railways and 445 major roads before 18 July 2013 had to rely on data from 2011 and to include the measures for the years 2013 to 2018. The Slovak Republic claims that it fulfilled that obligation a posteriori. The requirements set out by the Commission at the reply stage amount, in practice, to the Slovak Republic being obliged to refrain from endeavouring, if only a posteriori, to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49 and referred to in the present action, while requiring it to seek to fulfil another obligation, namely that laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49 – an obligation in respect of which no infringement proceedings have been brought against it. In other words, the Commission’s arguments mean that if a Member State has not fulfilled its obligations within the period laid down by that directive, then it will never be able to do so. |
| --- | --- |

21

The Slovak Republic rejects the Commission’s line of argument, which it submits is illogical and confused. It maintains that it follows from Directive 2002/49 that the action plans which that Member State was required to draw up for 16 major railways and 445 major roads before 18 July 2013 had to rely on data from 2011 and to include the measures for the years 2013 to 2018. The Slovak Republic claims that it fulfilled that obligation a posteriori. The requirements set out by the Commission at the reply stage amount, in practice, to the Slovak Republic being obliged to refrain from endeavouring, if only a posteriori, to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49 and referred to in the present action, while requiring it to seek to fulfil another obligation, namely that laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49 – an obligation in respect of which no infringement proceedings have been brought against it. In other words, the Commission’s arguments mean that if a Member State has not fulfilled its obligations within the period laid down by that directive, then it will never be able to do so.

| 22 | In the event that the Commission alleges, in the reply, that the Slovak Republic failed to fulfil the obligation to carry out in good time a public consultation on the action plans, laid down in Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, and the obligation to review or revise action plans at the latest five years after their date of approval, laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49, the Slovak Republic submits that those complaints are inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

22

In the event that the Commission alleges, in the reply, that the Slovak Republic failed to fulfil the obligation to carry out in good time a public consultation on the action plans, laid down in Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, and the obligation to review or revise action plans at the latest five years after their date of approval, laid down in Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49, the Slovak Republic submits that those complaints are inadmissible.

| 23 | Furthermore, the Slovak Republic points out, first, that, even though the action plans which are the subject of the action were not finalised until 2020, that does not mean that no measure to combat environmental noise was adopted with regard to the major roads and major railways concerned after 2013. In that regard, it mentions several measures for the modernisation of railway lines or aimed directly at reducing noise sources. |
| --- | --- |

23

Furthermore, the Slovak Republic points out, first, that, even though the action plans which are the subject of the action were not finalised until 2020, that does not mean that no measure to combat environmental noise was adopted with regard to the major roads and major railways concerned after 2013. In that regard, it mentions several measures for the modernisation of railway lines or aimed directly at reducing noise sources.

| 24 | Next, the Slovak Republic contends that it is fully aware of its obligations under Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49. It states that, in accordance with that provision, it drew up and communicated to the Commission several summaries of action plans taking into account the situation in respect of 2016. |
| --- | --- |

24

Next, the Slovak Republic contends that it is fully aware of its obligations under Article 8(5) of Directive 2002/49. It states that, in accordance with that provision, it drew up and communicated to the Commission several summaries of action plans taking into account the situation in respect of 2016.

| 25 | Lastly, the Slovak Republic points out that it was far from being the only Member State to have delayed in fulfilling the obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49. |
| --- | --- |

25

Lastly, the Slovak Republic points out that it was far from being the only Member State to have delayed in fulfilling the obligations under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49.

Findings of the Court

Findings of the Court

| 26 | In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the issue whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see judgment of 27 January 2021, Commission v Austria(VAT – Travel agencies), C‐787/19, not published, EU:C:2021:72, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). |
| --- | --- |

26

In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the issue whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see judgment of 27 January 2021, Commission v Austria(VAT – Travel agencies), C‐787/19, not published, EU:C:2021:72, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

| 27 | In the present case, the Slovak Republic does not dispute that, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, namely 15 August 2017, it had not drawn up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to the present judgment, nor forwarded to the Commission summaries of those action plans. |
| --- | --- |

27

In the present case, the Slovak Republic does not dispute that, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, namely 15 August 2017, it had not drawn up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to the present judgment, nor forwarded to the Commission summaries of those action plans.

| 28 | As regards the documents entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major railways managed by the Slovak national railway company (ŽSR) in operation in 2011 – Summary’ and ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major roads managed by the Slovak Road Administration (SSC) on the basis of the situation in 2011 – Summary’, the Slovak Republic does not dispute that it communicated them to the Commission on 10 September and 31 December 2020, that is to say, after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. As regards the first of those two documents, it also states that the reference to 2013 (see paragraph 18 above) was retained on that document, as it was initially to have been drawn up in 2013. However, it confirms that even that document was not finalised until 2020, after the public consultation. |
| --- | --- |

28

As regards the documents entitled ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major railways managed by the Slovak national railway company (ŽSR) in operation in 2011 – Summary’ and ‘Action plan for protection against noise from certain major roads managed by the Slovak Road Administration (SSC) on the basis of the situation in 2011 – Summary’, the Slovak Republic does not dispute that it communicated them to the Commission on 10 September and 31 December 2020, that is to say, after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. As regards the first of those two documents, it also states that the reference to 2013 (see paragraph 18 above) was retained on that document, as it was initially to have been drawn up in 2013. However, it confirms that even that document was not finalised until 2020, after the public consultation.

| 29 | It follows that, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 26 above, those documents are irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the existence, at that date, of the alleged infringements. |
| --- | --- |

29

It follows that, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 26 above, those documents are irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the existence, at that date, of the alleged infringements.

| 30 | Furthermore, it must be noted that the Slovak Republic’s claim concerning the inadmissibility of some of the Commission’s arguments is based on a misreading of the Commission’s pleadings. |
| --- | --- |

30

Furthermore, it must be noted that the Slovak Republic’s claim concerning the inadmissibility of some of the Commission’s arguments is based on a misreading of the Commission’s pleadings.

| 31 | As the Slovak Republic itself points out, the Commission does not ask the Court to find that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations other than those laid down in Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49. |
| --- | --- |

31

As the Slovak Republic itself points out, the Commission does not ask the Court to find that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations other than those laid down in Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49.

| 32 | In fact, the Commission referred to the obligations to revise the action plans and consult the public about proposals for action plans, laid down in Article 8(5) and (7) of that directive, solely in the context of the documents referred to in paragraph 28 above, in order to demonstrate, in particular, that those documents were adopted recently and, in any event, after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, a fact which is not disputed in the present proceedings by the Slovak Republic. |
| --- | --- |

32

In fact, the Commission referred to the obligations to revise the action plans and consult the public about proposals for action plans, laid down in Article 8(5) and (7) of that directive, solely in the context of the documents referred to in paragraph 28 above, in order to demonstrate, in particular, that those documents were adopted recently and, in any event, after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, a fact which is not disputed in the present proceedings by the Slovak Republic.

| 33 | In so far as the Slovak Republic points out that it was far from being the only Member State to have delayed in fulfilling the obligations arising under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, suffice it to note that the Court has repeatedly held that a Member State cannot justify its failure to fulfil its obligations under the FEU Treaty by pointing to the fact that other Member States have also failed, and continue to fail, to fulfil their obligations (judgment of 18 November 2010, Commission v Spain, C‐48/10, not published, EU:C:2010:704, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited). |
| --- | --- |

33

In so far as the Slovak Republic points out that it was far from being the only Member State to have delayed in fulfilling the obligations arising under Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, suffice it to note that the Court has repeatedly held that a Member State cannot justify its failure to fulfil its obligations under the FEU Treaty by pointing to the fact that other Member States have also failed, and continue to fail, to fulfil their obligations (judgment of 18 November 2010, Commission v Spain, C‐48/10, not published, EU:C:2010:704, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

| 34 | Accordingly, the action must be upheld. |
| --- | --- |

34

Accordingly, the action must be upheld.

| 35 | In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment and, secondly, by not communicating to the Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively. |
| --- | --- |

35

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment and, secondly, by not communicating to the Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively.

Costs

Costs

| 36 | Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Slovak Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

36

Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Slovak Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

| | On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby: |
| --- | --- |

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

| | 1. | Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

1.

Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively;

Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively;

| | 2. | Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

2.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

| | [Signatures] |
| --- | --- |

[Signatures]

Annex

Annex

Major roads

Major roads

National identification number Unique identification number

90269 SK_b_rd001

90260 SK_b_rd002

90290 SK_b_rd003

90290 SK_b_rd004

90308 SK_b_rd005

90308 SK_b_rd006

90309 SK_b_rd007

90309 SK_b_rd008

90309 SK_b_rd009

90100 SK_b_rd010

90100 SK_b_rd011

90100 SK_b_rd012

90118 SK_b_rd013

90118 SK_b_rd014

90118 SK_b_rd015

90118 SK_b_rd016

90119 SK_b_rd017

90120 SK_b_rd018

90120 SK_b_rd019

90120 SK_b_rd020

90120 SK_b_rd021

90120 SK_b_rd022

90120 SK_b_rd023

90130 SK_b_rd024

90130 SK_b_rd025

90140 SK_b_rd026

90149 SK_b_rd027

90149 SK_b_rd028

90149 SK_b_rd029

90149 SK_b_rd030

90149 SK_b_rd031

90158 SK_b_rd032

90158 SK_b_rd033

90158 SK_b_rd034

90158 SK_b_rd035

90158 SK_b_rd036

90158 SK_b_rd037

90169 SK_b_rd038

90170 SK_b_rd039

90180 SK_b_rd040

90180 SK_b_rd041

90187 SK_b_rd042

90187 SK_b_rd043

90187 SK_b_rd044

90210 SK_b_rd045

90210 SK_b_rd046

90220 SK_b_rd047

37 SK_b_rd048

30 SK_b_rd049

30 SK_b_rd050

47 SK_b_rd051

47 SK_b_rd052

40 SK_b_rd053

40 SK_b_rd054

69 SK_b_rd055

69 SK_b_rd056

60 SK_b_rd057

60 SK_b_rd058

60 SK_b_rd059

60 SK_b_rd060

60 SK_b_rd061

60 SK_b_rd062

66 SK_b_rd063

70 SK_b_rd064

70 SK_b_rd065

70 SK_b_rd066

80 SK_b_rd067

127 SK_b_rd068

127 SK_b_rd069

127 SK_b_rd070

130 SK_b_rd071

380 SK_b_rd072

390 SK_b_rd073

390 SK_b_rd074

390 SK_b_rd075

390 SK_b_rd076

390 SK_b_rd077

410 SK_b_rd078

410 SK_b_rd079

410 SK_b_rd080

410 SK_b_rd081

410 SK_b_rd082

420 SK_b_rd083

420 SK_b_rd084

430 SK_b_rd085

430 SK_b_rd086

430 SK_b_rd087

430 SK_b_rd088

440 SK_b_rd089

446 SK_b_rd090

470 SK_b_rd091

80027 SK_b_rd092

80027 SK_b_rd093

80027 SK_b_rd094

80027 SK_b_rd095

80027 SK_b_rd096

80027 SK_b_rd097

80027 SK_b_rd098

80026 SK_b_rd099

80630 SK_b_rd100

80630 SK_b_rd101

80640 SK_b_rd102

80658 SK_b_rd103

80658 SK_b_rd104

80659 SK_b_rd105

80659 SK_b_rd106

83660 SK_b_rd107

83668 SK_b_rd108

83668 SK_b_rd109

83668 SK_b_rd110

83668 SK_b_rd111

83668 SK_b_rd112

83668 SK_b_rd113

92099 SK_b_rd114

92099 SK_b_rd115

92099 SK_b_rd116

92099 SK_b_rd117

92099 SK_b_rd118

92100 SK_b_rd119

92107 SK_b_rd120

92107 SK_b_rd121

92107 SK_b_rd122

91450 SK_b_rd123

91450 SK_b_rd124

92107 SK_b_rd125

92107 SK_b_rd126

92107 SK_b_rd127

91456 SK_b_rd128

92117 SK_b_rd129

92117 SK_b_rd130

92110 SK_b_rd131

92110 SK_b_rd132

92110 SK_b_rd133

92110 SK_b_rd134

92120 SK_b_rd135

92120 SK_b_rd136

92150 SK_b_rd137

92160 SK_b_rd138

92160 SK_b_rd139

90460 SK_b_rd140

90470 SK_b_rd141

90470 SK_b_rd142

90480 SK_b_rd143

90480 SK_b_rd144

90480 SK_b_rd145

90480 SK_b_rd146

90490 SK_b_rd147

90490 SK_b_rd148

90490 SK_b_rd149

90500 SK_b_rd150

90509 SK_b_rd151

90510 SK_b_rd152

90510 SK_b_rd153

90510 SK_b_rd154

90510 SK_b_rd155

90510 SK_b_rd156

90520 SK_b_rd157

90520 SK_b_rd158

90527 SK_b_rd159

90527 SK_b_rd160

90527 SK_b_rd161

90527 SK_b_rd162

90527 SK_b_rd163

90527 SK_b_rd164

90527 SK_b_rd165

90527 SK_b_rd166

90527 SK_b_rd167

90530 SK_b_rd168

90536 SK_b_rd169

90540 SK_b_rd170

90550 SK_b_rd171

90550 SK_b_rd172

90550 SK_b_rd173

90560 SK_b_rd174

90560 SK_b_rd175

90560 SK_b_rd176

90560 SK_b_rd177

90580 SK_b_rd178

90580 SK_b_rd179

90590 SK_b_rd180

90596 SK_b_rd181

540 SK_b_rd182

540 SK_b_rd183

540 SK_b_rd184

550 SK_b_rd185

600 SK_b_rd186

618 SK_b_rd187

618 SK_b_rd188

618 SK_b_rd189

239 SK_b_rd190

239 SK_b_rd191

240 SK_b_rd192

240 SK_b_rd193

240 SK_b_rd194

258 SK_b_rd195

269 SK_b_rd196

270 SK_b_rd197

270 SK_b_rd198

280 SK_b_rd199

290 SK_b_rd200

290 SK_b_rd201

299 SK_b_rd202

300 SK_b_rd203

300 SK_b_rd204

310 SK_b_rd205

310 SK_b_rd206

80750 SK_b_rd207

80750 SK_b_rd208

80750 SK_b_rd209

80780 SK_b_rd210

80780 SK_b_rd211

85520 SK_b_rd212

85526 SK_b_rd213

85526 SK_b_rd214

85526 SK_b_rd215

85526 SK_b_rd216

85526 SK_b_rd217

81170 SK_b_rd218

81170 SK_b_rd219

81180 SK_b_rd220

81180 SK_b_rd221

81180 SK_b_rd222

81180 SK_b_rd223

81200 SK_b_rd224

81200 SK_b_rd225

81230 SK_b_rd226

81230 SK_b_rd227

81720 SK_b_rd228

81720 SK_b_rd229

81726 SK_b_rd230

81726 SK_b_rd231

81726 SK_b_rd232

81726 SK_b_rd233

81726 SK_b_rd234

81726 SK_b_rd235

81726 SK_b_rd236

90660 SK_b_rd237

90660 SK_b_rd238

90660 SK_b_rd239

90670 SK_b_rd240

90670 SK_b_rd241

90700 SK_b_rd242

90756 SK_b_rd243

90750 SK_b_rd244

90750 SK_b_rd245

90750 SK_b_rd246

90750 SK_b_rd247

90780 SK_b_rd248

90780 SK_b_rd249

90790 SK_b_rd250

90790 SK_b_rd251

80140 SK_b_rd252

80146 SK_b_rd253

80190 SK_b_rd254

80190 SK_b_rd255

80190 SK_b_rd256

80200 SK_b_rd257

80200 SK_b_rd258

80200 SK_b_rd259

80200 SK_b_rd260

80260 SK_b_rd261

80030 SK_b_rd262

80030 SK_b_rd263

80040 SK_b_rd264

80050 SK_b_rd265

90019 SK_b_rd266

90019 SK_b_rd267

90019 SK_b_rd268

90019 SK_b_rd269

90019 SK_b_rd270

90019 SK_b_rd271

90010 SK_b_rd272

90010 SK_b_rd273

90040 SK_b_rd274

90040 SK_b_rd275

90040 SK_b_rd276

90040 SK_b_rd277

80286 SK_b_rd278

80286 SK_b_rd279

80286 SK_b_rd280

80288 SK_b_rd281

80288 SK_b_rd282

80288 SK_b_rd283

80288 SK_b_rd284

80288 SK_b_rd285

80289 SK_b_rd286

80289 SK_b_rd287

80296 SK_b_rd288

80297 SK_b_rd289

80297 SK_b_rd290

80297 SK_b_rd291

80297 SK_b_rd292

81460 SK_b_rd293

81460 SK_b_rd294

81478 SK_b_rd295

81478 SK_b_rd296

81478 SK_b_rd297

81479 SK_b_rd298

81480 SK_b_rd299

81480 SK_b_rd300

81480 SK_b_rd301

81480 SK_b_rd302

81496 SK_b_rd303

81496 SK_b_rd304

81496 SK_b_rd305

81496 SK_b_rd306

81500 SK_b_rd307

81510 SK_b_rd308

81510 SK_b_rd309

81510 SK_b_rd310

81510 SK_b_rd311

81570 SK_b_rd312

81570 SK_b_rd313

81570 SK_b_rd314

80420 SK_b_rd315

80458 SK_b_rd316

80459 SK_b_rd317

80560 SK_b_rd318

80560 SK_b_rd319

80570 SK_b_rd320

80590 SK_b_rd321

80590 SK_b_rd322

80620 SK_b_rd323

80628 SK_b_rd324

80628 SK_b_rd325

80628 SK_b_rd326

80628 SK_b_rd327

91460 SK_b_rd328

91460 SK_b_rd329

91460 SK_b_rd330

91440 SK_b_rd331

91440 SK_b_rd332

91430 SK_b_rd333

91430 SK_b_rd334

91430 SK_b_rd335

91380 SK_b_rd336

91380 SK_b_rd337

91380 SK_b_rd338

91370 SK_b_rd339

91370 SK_b_rd340

91360 SK_b_rd341

80350 SK_b_rd342

80350 SK_b_rd343

80357 SK_b_rd344

80357 SK_b_rd345

80360 SK_b_rd346

80360 SK_b_rd347

80360 SK_b_rd348

80370 SK_b_rd349

80370 SK_b_rd350

80380 SK_b_rd351

80390 SK_b_rd352

80390 SK_b_rd353

80390 SK_b_rd354

80390 SK_b_rd355

90390 SK_b_rd356

90390 SK_b_rd357

91300 SK_b_rd358

91300 SK_b_rd359

91296 SK_b_rd360

91290 SK_b_rd361

91290 SK_b_rd362

91260 SK_b_rd363

91250 SK_b_rd364

91250 SK_b_rd365

91550 SK_b_rd366

91550 SK_b_rd367

91530 SK_b_rd368

91530 SK_b_rd369

95376 SK_b_rd370

95377 SK_b_rd371

95380 SK_b_rd372

95380 SK_b_rd373

95377 SK_b_rd374

95376 SK_b_rd375

90880 SK_b_rd376

90880 SK_b_rd377

90897 SK_b_rd378

90897 SK_b_rd379

90900 SK_b_rd380

90900 SK_b_rd381

90900 SK_b_rd382

90900 SK_b_rd383

90900 SK_b_rd384

90910 SK_b_rd385

90910 SK_b_rd386

90910 SK_b_rd387

90920 SK_b_rd388

90930 SK_b_rd389

90930 SK_b_rd390

90937 SK_b_rd391

90937 SK_b_rd392

90940 SK_b_rd393

90940 SK_b_rd394

1300 SK_b_rd395

1300 SK_b_rd396

1300 SK_b_rd397

1300 SK_b_rd398

1300 SK_b_rd399

1300 SK_b_rd400

1310 SK_b_rd401

1310 SK_b_rd402

1310 SK_b_rd403

1320 SK_b_rd404

910 SK_b_rd405

910 SK_b_rd406

910 SK_b_rd407

910 SK_b_rd408

920 SK_b_rd409

930 SK_b_rd410

936 SK_b_rd411

930 SK_b_rd412

930 SK_b_rd413

940 SK_b_rd414

950 SK_b_rd415

2069 SK_b_rd416

95610 SK_b_rd417

91230 SK_b_rd418

91230 SK_b_rd419

91230 SK_b_rd420

91230 SK_b_rd421

91230 SK_b_rd422

91230 SK_b_rd423

1330 SK_b_rd424

1330 SK_b_rd425

1330 SK_b_rd426

5570 SK_b_rd427

5570 SK_b_rd428

5570 SK_b_rd429

5570 SK_b_rd430

5580 SK_b_rd431

1789 SK_b_rd432

81330 SK_b_rd433

81330 SK_b_rd434

81330 SK_b_rd435

81340 SK_b_rd436

81340 SK_b_rd437

81340 SK_b_rd438

81340 SK_b_rd439

81350 SK_b_rd440

81350 SK_b_rd441

81350 SK_b_rd442

81360 SK_b_rd443

81360 SK_b_rd444

81360 SK_b_rd445

Major railways

Major railways

National identification number Unique identification number

ŽSR-110 SK_a_rl1

ŽSR-110 SK_a_rl2

ŽSR-120 SK_a_rl3

ŽSR-120 SK_a_rl4

ŽSR-130 SK_a_rl5

ŽSR-130 SK_a_rl6

ŽSR-120 SK_a_rl7

ŽSR-127 SK_a_rl8

ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl9

ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl10

ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl11

ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl12

ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl13

ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl14

ŽSR-180 SK_a_rl15

ŽSR-190 SK_a_rl16

---

(
  *1
  )	Language of the case: Slovak.

*1