Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2010:49
Date: 2010-01-28
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Environment;Pollution
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Luxembourg

Summary of the Judgment 1. Procedure – Rules on languages – Presentation of evidence or documents in a language different from the language of the case – Community law (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 29(2)(a) and (3)) 2. Procedure – Res judicata – Scope 3. Environment – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Directive 91/676 (Council Directive 91/676, Arts 4 and 5, Annex II A(1), (2), (5) and (6), and Annex III(1)(1) and (2)) 1. Pursuant to Article 29(2)(a) and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the written pleadings and the annexes thereto must be submitted in the language of the case. Therefore, documents drafted in another language must be accompanied by a translation in the language of the case. However, under the third subparagraph of Article 29(3) of those rules, in the case of lengthy documents, translations may be confined to extracts. Furthermore, the Court may, of its own motion or at the request of a party, at any time call for a complete or fuller translation. Therefore, there is no need to remove from the file the two annexes submitted in a language other than the language of the case when the action was lodged, the relevant passages of which were translated and reproduced in the application and the translation of which into the language of the case was produced at a later stage, in accordance with the request made by the Court Registry. (see paras 16-17, 19-20) 2. The principle of res judicata is applicable to infringement proceedings. However, res judicata extends only to the matters of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question. In the context of infringement proceedings against a Member State, that State may not validly plead res judicata in the light of an earlier judgment when those two cases are not essentially identical in fact and in law, and that in the light of the content of the complaints put forward by the Commission. (see paras 27, 34) 3. By failing to provide, in its national legislation, for periods of prohibition of the land application of all types of fertiliser, including chemical fertilisers; by laying down that the periods during which the land application of certain types of fertiliser is prohibited do not apply to grassland; by allowing the competent ministers discretion to provide exceptions to the prohibition periods in the event of extreme climatic conditions or in the case of exceptional events affecting farms; by failing to provide, concerning existing facilities for livestock manure that have not been modernised, for rules relating to the capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure or that that capacity must exceed that required throughout the longest period during which land application in the vulnerable zone is prohibited, except where it can be demonstrated that any quantity of manure in excess of the actual storage capacity will be disposed of in a manner which will not cause harm to the environment; by prohibiting, on steeply sloping ground, only the land application of organic fertiliser without including chemical fertiliser in that prohibition; and by failing to lay down rules covering the procedures for the land application, including rate and uniformity of spreading, of both chemical fertilizer and livestock manure, that will maintain nutrient losses to water at an acceptable level, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 91/676 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, in conjunction with Annex II A(1), (2), (5) and (6), and Annex III(1)(1) and (2) thereto. (see paras 54-55, 58, 60, 62-66, 68, 70-71, operative part)